 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Mazzi11/6/2000
When a severe economic hardship exists, the court has wide discretion to modify the support order as well as to reevaluate the underlying facts. The common law doctrines of finality are superceded when the statutes governing the matter expressly provide for modification of the court's order. A trial court's finding that a child support order resulted in severe economic hardship in practice will be upheld where supported by substantial evidence. Here substantial evidence supported the finding. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
This is a challenge to a modification of a child support order entered after a finding of severe economic hardship that resulted from reimbursement for travel expenses for visitation sought by the non- custodial parent. The parties were previously before this court on a challenge to the original child custody and support order. The facts will not be restated as they are well known to the parties.
1. Standard of Review.
Consistent with RCW 26.09.175(1)(5), the motion for modification was heard by the trial court on affidavit. Where a trial is by affidavit, facts are reviewed for substantial evidence. The appellant, Dawn Marie Mazzi, now known as Dawn Jallen and hereinafter referred to as Ms. Jallen, cites to a line of authority indicating that where a trial involves no oral testimony, the standard of review is de novo.
In the case of In re Marriage of Stern, to which we adhere, this court pointed out several other policy reasons why the trial court's findings of facts should be reviewed for substantial evidence. The trial court has had the benefit of oral argument regarding the facts. More importantly, if the trial court is reviewed de novo, the entire proceeding at the trial court level is mooted by the appellate review. Such a proceeding would be a waste of judicial resources, as well as the resources of the parties. Principles of economy strongly mitigate against the requirement that the parties and the trial court progress through a cumbersome and pointless process just so the case may proceed to the appellate court where it will actually be decided.
2. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of a severe economic hardship in practice.
A decree for maintenance or support may be modified only upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances, or through a limited number of other specific statutory exceptions. One of those exceptions includes a showing of severe economic hardship. RCW 26.09.170 provides in part:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (7) of RCW 26.09.070, the provisions of any decree respecting maintenance or support may be modified: . . . (b) except as otherwise provided in subsections (4), (5), (8), and (9) of this section, only upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances.
Subsection (4) provides:
An order of child support may be modified one year or more after it has been entered without showing a substantial change of circumstances: (a) If the order in practice works a severe economic hardship on either party or the child{.}
Modification due to a severe economic hardship does not require a showing of a substantial change of circumstances. Further, modification for severe economic hardship may be made as soon as one year after the order was entered.
Under the statute a modification is appropriate if, in practice, the order works a severe economic hardship on either party or the child. There is no formal legal test for a severe economic hardship because none could adequately encompass the wide range of factual situations that might arise. Rather, the court loo
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|