TN Dad Modifies Child Support Due To Loss of Customer
Tennessee law case summary on child support modification in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Elizabeth Ann Grisham v Mark Alan Grisham – Tennessee Child Support Modification and Income Determination
The husband, Mark Grisham petitioned the court to modify alimony and child support payments and the wife Elizabeth Grisham filed a contempt petition against the husband. The trial court reduced the child support obligations and refused to hold the husband in contempt. The appeals court reviewed the case. The couple was divorced in 2006 after a 24 year marriage. The wife was awarded primary residential parent for the minor child and the husband was required to make child support payments for $4000 per month, including a $1,900 upward deviation.
In May of 2008, the husband filed a petition to modify the agreement due to an unanticipated substantial and material change of circumstance. He cited the largest customer of the husband’s employer selling its Olive Branch plant, which was the largest customer. This caused a significant reduction in his income. The trial court reduced the child support to $3,000 per month, including an upward deviation of $900. In August of 2009, the husband filed a second motion seeking further reductions in child support due to unanticipated substantial and material changes. A reduction of income of 25 percent was noted.
In February of 2010, the lower court determined that the husband’s income was steadily declining and established his current income at $12,000 per month, and reduced the child support obligations to $1,513 per month.
The wife filed an appeal in the case. The appeals court considered the fact that the significant variance as at least a fifteen percent change for support and the amount of proposed presumptive support order was necessary. Due to the husband’s declining income, the trial court based its determination of the husband’s income on the average from October through December of 2009.
The appeals court determined that the husband’s income fluctuates from month to month. It noted that the trial court did not average his income properly. Based on the circumstances of the case, it found that long-term averaging was inappropriate. Rather, it found it better to average the husband’s commissions paid between October through December of 2009. His monthly gross income at that point was $12,314.83 and his presumptive child support obligation was $1,536 per month.
The wife also stated that the trial court did not have the authority to eliminate the $900 per month upward deviation and made no support of why it did so. The appeals court noted that the trial court had the right to do this under the state’s Code. Because of a significant variance was found in the case, the trial court did not err in eliminating this obligation.
No. W2010-00618-COA-R3-CV, Filed February 22, 2011.
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA, practices family law exclusively with the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC in Memphis, Tennessee. To learn more about Tennessee child support laws, read and view:
