Opinion
No. C6-84-755.
October 30, 1984.
Appeal from the County Court, Dakota County, George H. Hoey, J.
James C. Lofstrom, Alton, Severson, Sovis, Groves Chezick, Apple Valley, for appellant.
Louis M. Reidenberg, Reidenberg Jaycox, Bloomington, for respondent.
Considered and decided by FOLEY, P.J., and WOZNIAK and NIERENGARTEN, JJ., with oral argument waived.
OPINION
The mother appeals an order reducing the father's child support obligations. She contends that a reduction in child support is inconsistent with the trial court's finding of a substantial increase in the father's income. We reverse.
FACTS
Sharon and Allan Schwartz's marriage was dissolved in June 1982. The dissolution decree gave the mother custody of the couple's three children. At the time of the dissolution the father earned $40,000 per year. The decree required him to pay 35 per cent of his net income for child support. Since he netted approximately $2,260 per month, his payments originally were $789 per month.
In December 1983, the father moved to reopen and amend the dissolution decree, alleging fraud by his counsel and the mother. The trial court made no findings concerning fraud. It found a substantial increase in the father's income from $40,000 to $55,000 per year. He now nets $2,712 per month, 35 percent of which is $949 per month. The court ordered a reduction in child support to $600 per month.
ISSUE
Is the trial court's reduction of child support consistent with its finding of substantially increased income by the noncustodial father?
ANALYSIS
Trial courts have broad discretion regarding child support matters. Halper v. Halper, 348 N.W.2d 360, 362 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). If the determination has a reasonable and acceptable basis in fact, it must be affirmed. DuBois v. DuBois, 335 N.W.2d 503, 507 (Minn. 1983).
The trial court here erred in reducing child support. The only fraud alleged by the father is that his attorney and the mother led him to believe that after the mother completed her schooling she would contribute to the children's support, and that child support would be modified if the amount paid exceeded the needs of the children. Neither representation is fraud justifying setting aside the original child support provisions.
Furthermore, the modification is not justified by changed circumstances since the dissolution. Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (Supp. 1983), provides:
The terms of a decree respecting * * * support may be modified upon a showing of one or more of the following: (1) substantially increased or decreased earnings of a party; (2) substantially increased or decreased need of a party; * * any of which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair.
The only change the trial court found was a substantial increase in the father's income. Under appropriate circumstances that may have resulted in an increase in child support. However, because the father pays a percentage of his net income rather than a set figure as child support, his support payments have kept pace with his rising income.
Since the cost of raising a child does not rise proportionately with every increase in net income, it may have been within the trial court's discretion to order a decreasing percentage of the father's income be allocated to child support as his income rises. However, instead of cutting the percentage of increases in net income allocated to child support, the trial court cut total child support. It coupled a $450 per month increase in the father's net income with a $190 per month decrease in his child support obligations. in the absence of evidence of increased income by the mother and/or decreased need by the children, this decrease was an abuse of discretion.
DECISION
The trial court's findings do not support its reduction of child support. We reverse.