Gates v. Gates

BISHOP, Judge. This is an appeal from a Judgment of Absolute Divorce issued by the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County which modified the Separation and Property Settlement Agreement executed by David Gates, appellant, and Mary Gates, appellee, by which Mr. Gates’ child support obligation was increased from three hundred dollars ($300.00) per month to six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month. ISSUE Appellant asks this Court whether the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County abused its discretion by increasing appellant’s child support obligation. FACTS Mary Joyce Gates filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce and Increase in Child Support based on a change in the economic circumstances of the parties.

Mrs. Gates contended that Mr. Gates’ debts were reduced by the sale of the parties’ marital home and that, because the minor child was about to enter school, additional funds were necessary for school clothing and activities. ⁶⁶³ At the hearing the only contested issue was the request for an increase in child support. Copies of both parties’ financial statements were admitted into evidence as well as a copy of the Separation and Property Settlement Agreement. The court reviewed the parties’ financial statements and heard evidence concerning changes in their financial status including appellee’s need for additional child support. DISCUSSION Ordinarily the amount of a child support award is governed by the circumstances of the case and is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose determination should not be disturbed unless he has acted arbitrarily in administering his discretion or was clearly wrong.

Kramer v. Kramer, 26 Md.App. 620 , 339 A.2d 328 (1975). At the time of trial, the Child Support Guidelines provided under Maryland Family Law Code Ann. § 12-202 (Supp. 1989) 1 were advisory only and gave rise to no presumption or inference. ⁶⁶⁴ If the court had decided not to follow the guidelines under § 12-202, the factors which the court should have considered in awarding child support include the financial circumstances of the parties, their station in life, their age and physical condition, their ability to work, and the expense of educating the children. Kramer, supra 339 A.2d at 339 ; German v. German, 37 Md.App. 120 , 376 A.2d 115 (1977). The court should have considered the child’s situation in life taking into consideration the child’s particular needs.

Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143 , 238 A.2d 903 (1968). In the ease sub judice, the court heard testimony from the appellee that the cost of clothing and education was higher than originally estimated, but the appellee did not specify what the exact costs were. The court did not make an analysis of the financial situation of the parties and made no findings as to the costs of maintaining the child: Without being specific, the court stated that it was basing its decision “upon a number of factors.” The only specific factor that the court mentioned was that without the recent adoption of the Child Support Guidelines by the Legislature it “would not be inclined to change the support payment since it ($300.00) is not shocking to the conscience of the court.” The court then raised the figure to $600.00, the amount provided by the guidelines. The court did not mention any finding of fact to support a material change in circumstances concerning the parties’ financial status or any of the other relevant factors set forth in Kramer, German and Wagshal, supra.

Had the court, on the evidence, found the amount indicated by the guidelines to be reasonable, and made its award on that basis, we would likely have affirmed; however, having indicated that a much lower amount — $300.00 —was not inappropriate, it had no right virtually to double that amount based solely on the guidelines. 2 That action represented an abuse of discretion. ⁶⁶⁵ During the 1990 session of the General Assembly, Senate Bill No. 633, Chapter 55, Laws of Maryland, 1990 was passed as emergency legislation and subsequently signed by the Governor on April 10, 1990, the date on which it became effective. This bill provides: 12-202. (a)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, in any proceeding to establish or modify child support, whether pendente lite or permanent, the court shall use the child support guidelines set forth in this subtitle. (2)(I) There is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support which would result from the application of the child support guidelines set forth in this subtitle is the correct amount of child support to be awarded.

(II) The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. (III) In determining whether the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, the court may consider: 1. The terms of any existing separation or property settlement agreement or court order, including any provision for payment of