Wetherington v. Wetherington

The trial court erred in failing to consider whether there was a substantial change in the husband/father's financial circumstances between when the trial court entered the final divorce decree and the modification hearing to determine whether downward modification of the husband/father's child support obligation was warranted.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted Husband’s application for discretionary appeal to consider whether the trial court erred in determining Husband’s child support obligation in ruling on his petition for downward modification of child support. As explained below, the trial court did err in this respect. Husband raises two other issues, only one of which has merit, so we affirm the trial court’s judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand for redetermination of child support.

1. R. Edward Wetherington Husband and Elizabeth L. Wetherington Wife entered into a settlement agreement in October 2007, which was incorporated into the final decree of their divorce filed on January 15, 2008. The settlement agreement said that Husband’s “gross annual income is approximately $300,000,” while Wife’s is “approximately zero,” and he agreed to pay $7,000 per month in child support for the parties’ two children with the amount decreasing when the oldest child turned 18. The parties also agreed that they would evenly share the financial obligations associated with their ownership interest in a vacation condominium. In the divorce decree, the trial court found that Husband’s gross monthly income was $25,000, which, with no adjustments, lead to a presumptive child support amount of $2,884 per month. See OCGA § 19-6-15 o setting forth the schedule of basic child support obligations based on adjusted gross income. However, the court imposed the $7,000 per month obligation from the settlement agreement, explaining that it was deviating from the presumptive amount based on the parties’ agreement, which the court found was in the best interests of the children. See OCGA § 19-6-15 c providing that the parties may enter “into an enforceable agreement contrary to the presumptive amount of child support which may be made the order of the court pursuant to review by the court of the adequacy of the child support amounts negotiated by the parties”.

Wetherington v. Wetherington

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report