Case Name: STATE ex rel CLARK, Appellant, v. HURST, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1978-10-16
Citations: 36 Or. App. 569
Docket Number: No. 390-399, CA 10760
Parties: STATE ex rel CLARK, Appellant, v. HURST, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson and Gillette, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 36
Pages: 569–571

Head Matter:
Submitted September 6,
reversed and remanded with instructions October 16, 1978
STATE ex rel CLARK, Appellant, v. HURST, Respondent.
(No. 390-399, CA 10760)
585 P2d 33
James A. Redden, Attorney General, Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, and William F. Nessly, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.
G. Brock Hereford, Portland, waived appearance for respondent.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson and Gillette, Judges.
JOHNSON, J.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, J.
The mother appeals from a trial court's order refusing to modify the amount of child support under a filiation decree, ORS ch 109, entered in 1973.
The initial decree ordered the father to pay child support of $60 per month for a daughter, now age 5. On March 25,1977, the decree was modified by raising the child support to $75 per month. In January, 1978, both parties' motions for modification were denied. The trial court denied the mother's motion because "the record shows that the defendant is presently making $15,000 a year, and as counsel pointed out the judge last year considered he was making $15,000 a year." To the contrary, the 1977 order expressly states that the award of $75 was premised on the father's annual income of $11,500. The evidence indicates the father received a raise after March, 1977, and now has an annual income of $15,027.
The mother's income is $450 per month (net). In addition to the daughter, she has another child, age nine, for whom she provides the entire support.
We conclude that the father's increased income is a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification under the circumstances presented here. The support obligation is increased to $150 per month.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order in accordance with this opinion.