More than 30 years ago this Court adopted the straightforward rule that parties to an alimony agreement may obtain modification unless the agreement expressly waives the right of modification by referring specifically to that right; the right to modification will be waived by agreement of the parties only in very clear waiver language which refers to the right of modification. Varn v. Varn , 242 Ga. 309, 311 248 SE2d 667 1978. The trial court in this case read a divorce settlement agreement to forbid changes to child support payments below a floor amount, even though the agreement lacks a “clear and express waiver” of the modification right to any degree. Id. We therefore reverse. 1. Alan Patrick Dean Husband and Tracy Terwilliger Dean Wife were divorced on May 14, 2008. Their settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, provided that Husband would pay Wife monthly child support of $2,290, a figure “calculated based upon Husband’s annual salary of $185,000.” The agreement further stated that Husband’s child support payment would be recalculated soon after the start of each year, with the new amount being retroactive to January 1st and based again solely on his salary income. Finally, the agreement provided that “in no event shall the annual recalculation of Husband’s child support result in him paying less than the above-stated amount of $2,290.00 per month to Wife for the support of two minor children.”
The annual recalculations did not increase Husband’s child support obligation for 2009 or 2010. On June 28, 2010, however, Husband filed a petition for downward modification pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-15 j, alleging that his recent involuntary job termination had resulted in at least a 25 loss in income.1 Wife moved to dismiss, arguing that while Husband was not barred from seeking modification generally, he could not seek a reduction in child support a form of alimony2 because the settlement agreement set a negotiated floor of $2,290, the amount Husband was already paying. The trial court denied Wife’s motion to dismiss after concluding that Husband had not waived his right to seek statutory modification of his child support obligation. But the court then held that the obligation could not be reduced below the $2,290 floor set by the settlement agreement. Husband sought and was granted this interlocutory appeal.
