Opinion ID: 2631034
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arrearage Award

Text: ¶ 14 Father contends the trial court erred in setting the effective date for the increase as the date Mother filed the motion to modify. When modification of child support is ordered, Oklahoma law provides that: An order of modification shall be effective upon the date the motion to modify was filed, unless the parties agree to the contrary or the court makes a specific finding of fact that the material change of circumstances did not occur until a later date. 43 O.S.2001 118 (E)(16)(a)(4). In the instant matter, the trial court complied with § 118 and specifically determined the effective date for the increase in child support to be the date of filing of Mother's motion to modify. The court, relying on Kerby I, found the significant increase in Father's income to be the material change of circumstance initiating the modification process and, therefore, ordered Father to pay an arrearage of $62,400.00. [7] The court further stated that even if the increase in income did not suffice as the material change of circumstances required under § 118, a material change resulted nevertheless with the finding that the children's needs were $2,800.00 back in June, 1999, when the motion to modify was filed. ¶ 15 Father argues the material change in circumstance allowing the arrearage must be based on the increased needs of the children and not on the increase in his income. Because Father claims the expenses had not yet been incurred on behalf of the children, he claims the trial court's award of an arrearage is nothing more than a windfall to Mother. ¶ 16 Father is incorrect on several points. First, Father's argument is moot as the trial court specifically found both, the material increase in income and the change in the children's needs, to have occurred at the time of the filing of Mother's motion to modify. The trial court weighed the parties' evidence regarding actual and projected expenses and specifically determined that the children's needs as of the time of the modification were $2800.00. Moreover, as this Court has previously held, a significant change in income can be the sole basis warranting modification of a child support award. Kerby I, 2002 OK 91 at ¶¶ 7 and 8, 60 P.3d at 1041; Stephen v. Stephen, 1997 OK 53, ¶ 12, 937 P.2d 92, 97. We find no abuse of discretion in this determination, as it is supported by the record, and uphold the trial court's ruling in this regard.