Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-000433-ME
10-17-2014
JOSEPH RUSSELL ADAMS APPELLANT v. VERONICA ROBIN ADAMS APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Brandon Michael Music Grayson, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Robert W. Miller Grayson, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DAVID D. FLATT, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-CI-00103
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
BEFORE: ACREE, CHIEF JUDGE; CLAYTON AND MOORE, JUDGES. CLAYTON, JUDGE: Joseph Russell Adams appeals the portion of the January 31, 2014 order of the Carter Circuit Court that calculated child support without deducting the maintenance payment from Joseph's total gross income as required by Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.212(2)(g)(1). After careful consideration, we reverse and remand.
Joseph and Veronica Robin Adams were married in April 1997, and had three children during the marriage. Joseph filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on May 15, 2012. The parties entered into a separation agreement on March 22, 2012, where, among other things, Joseph agreed to pay $2,000.00 per month in child support and $1,000.00 per month in maintenance. But on May 15, 2012, the separation agreement was modified so that the parties agreed that Joseph would pay Veronica $1,400.00 per month in child support. A decree of dissolution was entered on May 16, 2012.
This action commenced when Veronica filed a motion on November 21, 2013, asking the trial court to enforce the judgment of maintenance and child support. Joseph responded to this motion by moving for modification of child support and termination of maintenance.
The trial court held a hearing on January 2, 2014. On the record, the trial court rendered its decision from the bench and noted that it was following the strictures of the Kentucky Child Support Guidelines. These guidelines serve as a rebuttable presumption for the establishment or modification of the amount of child support. Ciampa v. Ciampa, 415 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Ky. App. 2013).
On January 31, 2014, the trial court entered its written order, which granted Veronica's motion for Joseph to resume payment of maintenance and child support pursuant to the revised separation agreement. However, the trial court granted Joseph's motion to modify the child support amount since the trial court found that his income had been reduced by more than fifteen percent. Thus, his child support obligation was reduced to $1,101.00 per month retroactive to the filing of the motion to modify it. Further, the trial court ordered that Joseph pay, in addition to the monthly support, $171.45 per month until the arrearages of $2,000.00 in maintenance and $2,114.72 in child support were paid in full.
Joseph then filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order on February 10, 2014. The basis for his motion was that the trial court erred in its child support calculation because it had not, pursuant to KRS 403.212(g)(1), reduced the parties' combined parental income by the amount of maintenance Joseph was obligated to pay Veronica. The trial court denied this motion on February 26, 2014, and Joseph now appeals the January 31, 2014 and February 26, 2014 orders.
A trial court enjoys "broad discretion in the establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support." Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. Ivy, 353 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Ky. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of a trial court's decision in this context is based on whether it abused its discretion. However, statutory interpretation is a question of law for the court to be reviewed de novo. Neurodiagnostics, Inc. v. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 250 S.W.3d 321, 325 (Ky. 2008).
The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly calculated Joseph's child support obligation under the provisions of the Kentucky Child Support Guidelines. Joseph contends that the trial court erred in its award of child support since it failed to deduct his maintenance payment from the parties' total adjusted gross income as required by KRS 403.212(2)(g).
First, we observe that to determine child support under the guidelines it is necessary to ascertain the parties' gross income. Under KRS 403.212(2)(b), gross income is "income from any source, . . . and alimony or maintenance received." Therefore, the plain meaning of the statute necessitates that the determination of Veronica's gross income include not only the income imputed to her but also maintenance.
Next, after each party's gross income has been ascertained, the combined monthly gross income is determined by the methodology found in KRS 403.212(2)(g):
"Combined monthly adjusted parental gross income" means the combined monthly gross incomes of both parents, less any of the following payments made by the parent:Consequently, KRS 403.212(2)(g) mandates that if a parent is ordered to pay maintenance, the amount of maintenance is to be deducted from that parent's gross income to establish the "combined monthly adjusted parental gross income." This deduction would, of course, impact the percentages of Joseph and Veronica of combined adjusted parental gross income. Here, the amount of Joseph's child support obligation would be reduced.
1. The amount of pre-existing orders for current maintenance for prior spouses to the extent payment is actually made and the amount of current maintenance, if any, ordered paid in the proceeding before the court[.]
In the case at hand, the trial court failed to follow the mandate of KRS 403.212(2)(g) and deduct Joseph's monthly maintenance payment of $1,000.00 from his gross income to arrive at the parties' percentages of monthly adjusted parental gross income. Hence, the trial court failed to follow the requisite statutory instructions.
Veronica's argument that the statute only applies when the party is actually paying the maintenance is not persuasive. Pointing out that Joseph did not pay the maintenance after the filing of the appeal is simply not relevant to our consideration. This Court only reviews actions that occurred in the case below prior to the filing of the appeal. Also, Veronica's remedy for any failure by Joseph to timely pay maintenance and child support is to seek a judgment of enforcement similar to the one provided in this action. Simply put, for purposes of computation of child support, KRS 403.212(2)(g) permits a trial court to reduce the gross income of the party paying maintenance by the amount of the maintenance the party has been ordered to pay. This deduction is then reflected in the remaining child support calculation.
Both Joseph and Veronica have relied on Bell v. Bell, 423 S.W.3d 219 (Ky. 2014), to bolster their positions. Therein, the Kentucky Supreme Court observed that when dealing with child support, the trial court is given the authority to deviate from the statutory guidelines but may only deviate from the guidelines "where their application would be unjust or inappropriate." Id. at 25. Further, trial courts may only deviate from the guidelines when they make specific findings that application of the guidelines would not be just or appropriate. KRS 403.211(2).
Upon remand, the family court shall recalculate child support in consideration of KRS 403.212(2)(g). After the family court properly calculates a monthly child support obligation, the court may then exercise its discretion to deviate from the child support guidelines under the provisions of KRS 403.211. To do so, the family court must find that application of the guidelines would be "unjust or inappropriate" and thereafter specify the reasons for the deviation.
Thus, the order of the Carter Circuit Court is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Brandon Michael Music
Grayson, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Robert W. Miller
Grayson, Kentucky