Second Wife Testified Tenn Dad Lied About Income Setting Child Support
Tennessee child support law case law summary on retroactive child support based on fraud from the Court of Appeals.
In The Matter Of: Christopher A. D. – Tennessee Child Support and Income Determination
This case involves an appeal on the retroactive modification of child support paid by the father to the mother.
Christopher Dorris, the father, and Sheila Shackleford, the mother, had one child together in March, 1991 but never married. In 1995 or 1996, the father married Donna Dorris, the wife. In September 2000, the father was ordered to pay $359.10 in monthly child support. In March 2004, the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition on behalf of the mother, asking the father to show why his child support payments should not be increased. Prior to this petition, the DHS had twice asked the father for wage and income information but received nothing.
The father responded to this petition and filed his own counter-petition, claiming his income had been reduced. He claimed he had lost his job and opened up his own company, registered under his name and the wife’s name. The income tax returns for the company for 2003 showed a loss of over $1,700. The father also testified that his income was only $250 a week. The court dismissed the mother’s petition and left the father’s child support obligation unchanged.
In 2008, following an unpleasant divorce battle between the father and the wife, his second wife contacted the mother and told her that the father had lied in court in 2004 by under-reporting his actual income. In October 2008, based on this and other information from the second wife, the mother asked the court to modify the husband’s child support payments. She argued that he had “fraudulently” understated his real income and “failed to disclose his assets” so that he would not have to pay additional child support. The mother asked that the father pay child support owed retroactively to the date of the previous hearing in 2004. The petition was first rejected by the Juvenile Court Referee but then heard before the Juvenile Court following the mother’s request for a hearing.
The Juvenile court ruled after hearing testimony from the father, the second wife and the mother, and reviewing evidence which included bank deposit slips showing deposits of over $312,000 in 2004 to the father’s company, despite his income tax return which showed less than $200,000 in income. The court held that the father’s testimony was not reliable and that he had lied regarding his income. Based on an income of $50,000 a year in 2004, the court ordered the husband to pay retroactive child support in the amount of 21%, based on the guidelines in effect at that time. The court found that he owed over $26,000 in custody fees. The father appealed.
Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses – Father does not have to pay child support retroactively
The court of appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the amount of child support to be paid could not be modified retroactively, even if fraud was involved. Tennessee law was changed in 1987 in order to meet federal guidelines that were established to improve child support enforcement. The law prohibited retroactive modification of child support, even in a case such as this where the father lied about his earnings.
The appeals court referred to an earlier case, Hodge v. Craig, in which the father sued the mother for damages for misrepresenting the paternity of her child. In that case, the father had paid child support, medical expenses and medical insurance, only to discover that the mother had lied to him about the child’s paternity and that he was in fact not the child’s father. The appeals court held that Hodge differed from the current case because in Hodge, the father had no outstanding debt for child support, and in fact, actually had no child support obligation since he was not the father. Therefore, the money he requested was not a retroactive modification but rather an “award of damages in an intentional misrepresentation action.” The current case differs in that it is purely a request for a retroactive modification of child support, based on a misrepresentation of income.
Child support modified but calculation is wrong
The court of appeals upheld a change in the amount of child support going forward, from the time of the request in 2008 until the child became of age in 2009. The court noted, however, that the lower court mistakenly used the approach applicable in 2004 and calculated the father’s support at 21% of his income. In 2008, the method used to determine child support was based on the income shares model, and required each parent to pay a pro rata portion of their income. Presumably, the father would have paid more based on the income shares approach. However, neither party questioned the trial court’s calculation.
No. M2010-01385-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20. 2012).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
For more information, see Tennessee Child Support Answers to FAQ’s. For legal updates, news, analysis, and commentary, visit our Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Child Support category. A Memphis child support attorney from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help you with Tennessee child support issues including setting or modifying child support. To schedule your confidential consultation about Tennessee child support, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
