Opinion
14-P-536
05-11-2015
APRIL E. MARTIN v. CHRISTOPHER C. MARTIN.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Christopher C. Martin (father), appeals from a modification judgment entered in the Probate and Family Court ordering him to pay additional child support to the plaintiff, April E. Martin (mother), on joint income earned in excess of $250,000. His primary argument on appeal is that the judgment is unsupported by findings that the children are in need of additional support. We remand for additional findings.
In February, 2009, a judgment of divorce nisi entered incorporating the terms of the parties' separation agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the mother was granted primary custody of the parties' two minor children, and the father was ordered to pay child support pursuant to a self-executing formula. In 2012, the parties filed cross-complaints for modification. They resolved all but one issue by stipulation, including an increase in parenting time for the father. A nonevidentiary hearing was held as to the remaining issue, whether and in what amount the father should be required to pay child support on joint income over $250,000. Counsel and the parties were present at the hearing; the judge also had before him the parties' pertinent financial information. Judgment entered thereafter, incorporating the joint stipulation and ordering the father to pay additional child support in accordance with a calculation dependent on the gross income of the parties.
"The parties agree that the [h]usband shall pay to the [w]ife [fifty percent] of his gross income, including salary increases less the amount of [w]ife's gross income plus [fifty percent] of his net bonus/incentives to be paid when received for [c]hild [s]upport commencing on or about the first of the month following the date of this [a]greement. At no time shall the [c]hild [s]upport amount be less than the current Massachusetts State Child Support Guidelines for the support and maintenance of the parties' unemancipated children."
Under the separation agreement, the father had parenting time with the children for approximately thirty-three percent of the time. Under the subsequent stipulation, the father has parenting time for up to forty percent of the time.
"[T]he [child support] guidelines are not meant to apply where the combined annual gross income of the parties exceeds $250,000. In cases where income exceeds this limit, the Court should consider the award of support at the $250,000 level as the minimum presumptive order. Additional amounts of child support may be awarded in the Court's discretion." Katzman v. Healey, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 589, 599 (2010), quoting from the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines IV (2009).
The father acknowledges the trial judge's discretion in this regard. He contends, however, that the order in this case must be vacated because it is unsupported by findings that the children are in need of additional support. We agree.
The judge's memorandum of decision, issued in support of the modification judgment, states that, upon considering the original agreement and the subsequent stipulation, additional support is to be calculated according to an appended table. The record is silent as to the rationale underlying the judge's decision. Contrast Brooks v. Piela, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 731, 737 (2004) (judge's consideration of the children's needs implicit in order). On this record, we are not confident that the judge took into consideration the reasonable needs of the children, the standard of living of the parties, and the father's increased parenting time, in ordering additional child support. See M.C. v. T.K., 463 Mass. 226, 236-237 (2012). Accordingly a remand for additional findings is necessary.
The memorandum of decision states, in relevant part: "when the combined gross income of the parties exceeds $250,000 per year, child support shall be calculated as if Table A on the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet effective August 1, 2013 read as follows: [table omitted]."
As a result of the disposition reached herein, we need not consider the father's additional arguments.
The modification judgment dated September 3, 2013, is vacated. The case is remanded to the Probate and Family Court for additional findings consistent with this decision. The judge may, in his discretion, hear additional arguments or consider additional evidence. The mother's request for double costs and attorneys' fees is denied.
We do not intimate what the judge should or should not do upon remand.
So ordered.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Blake & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: May 11, 2015.