 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Campbell1/31/2005
James Eggen sought a reduction in his child support, which was denied. He contends the trial court failed to consider the relevant circumstances and make the required findings. We disagree and affirm.
Alexis and James Eggen divorced in 1997, and Alexis moved from Bellingham to Seattle with the couple's two young children. James was originally ordered to pay $1,000 per month in child support. In 1999, James offered to increase his support payments to $1,400 per month if Alexis would move back to Bellingham with the children. Alexis did so, and moved into a rental home that James owned. James offset his child support obligation by $900 for rent.
Alexis suffered a herniated disk in 1999. She underwent two surgeries to treat the injury, and her ability to work was significantly impaired during her recovery. When Alexis' car broke down in 2002, she did not have the money to repair or replace it. James offered her $10,000 in exchange for the custodial designation and a parenting plan modification setting a 50-50 residential schedule, representing that he would not seek a modification of the child support order. Alexis agreed to this arrangement, which took effect in January 2003. James reduced his working hours to spend even more time with the children.
Alexis remarried in 2003, and she and her new husband purchased a new home. Since Alexis and the children no longer resided in James' rental home, James was required to pay the full $1,400 support obligation. Alexis stated her ability to pay her $1,350 mortgage payment was contingent upon receiving this amount of support.
James promptly sought a reduction in his child support obligation, contending the change to a 50-50 residential schedule constituted a substantial change in circumstances. The parties filed child support worksheets and financial declarations. These documents established that James earns at least $16,416 per month ($196,992 per year) as an anesthesiologist, with more than $5,000 left each month after satisfying household expenses, and has $295,492 in assets. Alexis earns $800 per month as a part-time office assistant. Even with her current spouse's income of about $43,700 per year, Alexis' household comes up short every month.
The commissioner denied James' request for modification, finding that James' income far exceeds that of Alexis, and that a reduction in support would result in a hardship to Alexis and a loss of adequate housing or other necessities for the children. The court also found that James would suffer no hardship by continuing to pay the previously ordered support amount. James appeals.
We review child support orders for manifest abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791 P.2d 519 (1990). Discretion is abused if the trial court's decision was manifestly unreasonable, or based on untenable grounds or reasons. State ex. rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). A court's decision is based on untenable grounds if the factual findings are unsupported by the record, and is based on untenable reasons if it is based on an incorrect standard of law or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard of law. In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997). The amount of child support is within the sound discretion of the trial court. In re Marriage of Stern, 57 Wn. App. 707, 717, 789 P.2d 807 (1990). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court where the record shows the trial court considered the relevant factors and the award is not unreasonable under the circumstances. Id.
James contends the court abused its discretion by failing to consider th
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.
|
|