TIPS AND TECHNIQUES TO AID IN YOUR CASE
1. “Material” is the operative word here.
Several jurisdictions have followed the reasoning that “a small increase in the obligor’s income does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances.” In re Marriage of Armstrong, Former Husband, Petitioner, filed a petition to modify child support payments to his former Wife, Respondent. The trial court denied former Husband’s petition, ruling that “no substantial change in circumstances had been demonstrated justifying a modification of [P]etitioner’s child support from May of 2000 to May 2003.” The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
In summary, the court ordered Petitioner to pay child support in the amount of $1,250 per month based on the parties’ marital settlement agreement in July 1997. The information provided on appeal revealed that Petitioner’s gross income was approximately $90,000 per year. In February 1999, after the parties’ divorce, the Respondent filed a modification to modify the judgment. Respondent asked the trial court to increase the amount of child support. Following this petition, the court entered an order increasing support to $1,603 per month based on the parties’ agreement.
In April 2000, a year later after Respondent’s petition, Petitioner filed his own petition to modify arguing that his income had decreased from $90,000 to $60,000. The court denied Petitioner’s petition reasoning that he had not changed jobs in good faith. Notably, Petitioner did not appeal the court’s May 2000 order denying the modification and such May 2000 order was upheld. In September 2002, Mr. Armstrong filed another petition to modify the judgment. Petitioner testified that he was involuntarily terminated and that his gross salary was $66,661.56 per year. At the same hearing, Respondent testified that she grossed $13,000 per year working for a high school. This was a significant increase from her income of $3,400 per year in 2000. Respondent also testified that the children’s expenses were greater than they had been three years earlier. The trial court reasoned that there had been no substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of Petitioner’s child support from May of 2000 to date. The court reasoned that the increased income of the Petitioner substantially offset the increased income of the Respondent particularly when combined with the greater expenses presently for the parties’ three minor children. The court further found both current spouses had the ability to earn substantial income and consequently, the motion to modify filed by the Petitioner was denied. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision reasoning that while Petitioner’s salary increased from $60,000 to $66, 661.56 which was a change in circumstances as was the increase in salary of the Respondent, the Court could not find that the court’s determination that a substantial change in circumstances had not occurred was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Following the analysis in In re Marriage of Armstrong, it is not sufficient for obligor to argue that there has been a change in circumstances and as such, there is a need for modification of child support. This is because there needs to be a substantial change in the circumstances since the court’s previous order. Had the Petitioner in In re Armstrong filed his petition for modification on the premise of the original judgment where he was making $90,000 per year and was now making $60,000 that would probably have sufficed as a substantial change. However, there were several agreements/court orders in between which cut against his argument that there was a significant change in his circumstances. It is an important practice tip to remember that a Petitioner can only appeal the current order and not a prior order if arguing a change of circumstances.
Likewise, if the obligee or custodial parent files a petition for modification on the premise that the obligor is now making $66,661.56 and no longer $60,000, the obligor can make a good argument that this is not a material change of circumstances even that this is only a small increase in salary. “[A] small increase in the obligor's income does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances.”