Case Title: KERBY v. KERBY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95199

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
KERBY v. KERBY  KERBY v. KERBY 2002 OK 91 60 P.3d 1038 Case Number: 95199 Decided: 11/26/2002 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JENNIFER ANN KERBY, Plaintiff/Appellee v. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER KERBY, Defendant/Appellant ON CERTIORARI FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION IV ¶0 Mother sought modification of child support award based on increase in father's income without showing of change in children's needs. Father sought to have support decreased. District court, the Honorable Vicki L. Robertson, presiding, denied mother's prayer for increase in monetary award. Court of Civil Appeals' reversed. This Court granted certiorari. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. M. Joe Crosthwait, Roger Terrell Reneau, Midwest City, Oklahoma, for the Appellant William Edward Liebel, James Thomas Gorton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Appellee HODGES, J. ¶1 There are two issues presented for this Court's review: (1) In cases where the parent's combined income exceeds the child support guideline table (above table cases), whether a substantial increase in one parent's income is a material change of circumstances allowing review of an existing child support award without a showing of change in children's needs; and (2) Whether the appellee is entitled to appeal-related attorney fees. We answer both issues in the affirmative. I. FACTS ¶2 When Jennifer Ann Kerby (Mother) and Robert Christopher Kerby (Father) were divorced in 1995, they had two minor children. At that time, the parties' combined monthly income exceeded $10,000.00 per month, the maximum addressed by the child support guideline table. See Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 119 (1991). Father's income was approximately $125,000.00 a year, and Mother's income was about $21,000.00 a year. Father's share of support was calculated at ninety percent of the total. At the time of the existing award, Father's monthly payment to Mother for child support would have been more than $1,422.46 including the $216.00 payment for child care according to the child support guideline worksheet attached to the judgment. The parties entered into an agreement providing that Father would pay $1,500.00 per month in child support. Payment of the children's medical insurance was deducted from the amount owed Mother for support. Father additionally agreed to pay for the children's college tuition and fifty percent of the their equestrian activities. Plus, he agreed to maintain a life insurance policy for the children's benefit until both children reached twenty-two years of age. Mother's income has not substantially changed since the $1,500.00 award. Father's income has increased to about $500,000.00 a year. Father continues to pay the $1,500.00 even though Mother no longer pays child care fees. ¶3 In June of 1999, Mother filed a motion to modify the child support based on the increase in Father's income. Mother asserted that this increase resulted in a material change of circumstances warranting modification of child support and that an increase in child support would be in the children's best interest by enhancing their lifestyle. ¶4 Father filed a response and cross-motion to modify. Father asserted, among other things, that the current child support amount was more than sufficient to meet the children's reasonable needs. Father claimed that because the needs of the children had not increased since the divorce, the court lacked authority to modify the existing award. The only issue presented for this Court's review is the court's authority to modify the existing award. ¶5 The trial court denied both parent's motions to modify the monetary award of child support. Mother appealed the trial court's decision again asserting that a substantial increase in one party's income alone is a material change of circumstances warranting modification of the child support award. The Court of Civil Appeals agreed with Mother and remanded the issue back to the trial court for further proceedings. We granted Father's petition for certiorari. II. A DISTRICT COURT'S AUTHORITY TO MODIFY ¶6 There are two steps in the process of a child support award's modification. Before a court has authority to review an existing child support award, there must have been a material change in circumstances. Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 118 (E)(16)(a)(1) (2001). After establishing a material change of circumstance, the moving party must show that, under the facts, modification of the existing award is warranted. Huchteman v. Huchteman, ¶7 Oklahoma has established child support guidelines which follow the income-shares approach model for calculating child support amounts. See Okla. Stat. tit. 43, §§ 118, 119 . (2001). The guideline table establishes the financial needs of children based on their parents' ability to pay. Id.; [60 P.3d 1040] Archer v. Archer, ¶8 In Stephen v. Stephen, ¶9 Some jurisdictions have legislatively defined the amount of income variation which would give rise to a material change in circumstances. ¶10 Father argues the mere change in income does not require modification of the monetary award. We agree. A trial court is not obligated to modify an award when a material change has occurred but must consider all the relevant factors including the needs of the children at the time of the modification and the parents' income. ¶11 Father's income has increased nearly four times what it was at the time of the divorce. Courts are not required to provide opulence and excess in an award for child support. If a custodial parent's income significantly increases, the children will surely benefit by an enhanced lifestyle. Likewise, the children should benefit from a significant increase in a non-custodial parent's income. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to exclude Mother's evidence of the children's projected needs. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2402 (2001). On remand, the trial court should consider the children's needs at the time of the modification, not at the time of the decree and determine whether modification of the current amount of child support is warranted. III. APPEAL-RELATED ATTORNEY FEES ¶12 Mother has filed a motion for appeal-related attorney fees. "Appeal-related attorney fees are recoverable when there is statutory authority for the award of attorney fees in the trial court." Daniel v. Daniel, ¶13 An award of appeal-related attorney fees is not dependant on prevailing party status but whether equities warrant the award. Id. at ¶14 In the present case, Mother asserts that an award for appeal-related attorney fees is warranted based on the non-frivolous nature of her claim and her current financial condition. While Father, on the other hand, asserts that an award for appeal-related services is not warranted. Without citing authority, Father claims that the financial condition of the parties should play no role in the Court's determination of an award. ¶15 In the present case, Mother's motion to modify was not frivolous. Father's increase in income was a significant change in circumstances, giving rise to Mother's motion to modify. Further, there is considerable [60 P.3d 1042] disparity in the respective incomes and net worth of the parties. Based on these equitable considerations, we find that appeal-related attorney fees should be awarded Mother at an amount determined by the trial court on remand. IV. CONCLUSION ¶16 The significant increase in Father's income was a material change of circumstances allowing the court to review the existing child support award. Although a factor in determining whether a change in the amount of child support is appropriate, a showing of the change in the children's needs was not necessary for the court to have authority to review the existing award. The trial court erred in excluding evidence of the children's projected needs based on the increase in Father's income. The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion is vacated. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether a modification of the existing child support order is warranted and, if so, in what amount considering evidence of the children's projected expenses. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. ¶17 Watt, V.C.J., Hodges, Lavender, Opala, Boudreau, Winchester, JJ., concur. ¶18 Kauger, Summers, JJ., concur in result.[ 60 P.3d 1043 ] FOOT