Opinion ID: 2053897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Net Worth: A Factor in Determining Child Support

Text: In 1989, this Court adopted the Guidelines to facilitate adequate support awards for children, to make awards more equitable by ensuring consistent treatment of persons in similar circumstances, and to improve the efficiency of the process of determining support. Child Supp.G. 1 & Commentary. We have advised trial courts that achieving these ends does not require treating the Guidelines as immutable, black letter law. Id. at Commentary. Rather, there are situations which call for flexibility and courts should avoid the pitfall of blind adherence to the [Guidelines'] computation for support without giving careful consideration to the variables that require changing the result in order to do justice in such circumstances. Id. Deviation is proper if strict application of the Guidelines would be unreasonable, unjust, or inappropriate. See, e.g., Humphrey, 583 N.E.2d at 135. This Court's endorsement of flexibility in applying the Guidelines where strict application would be improper extends to modification proceedings. Kinsey, 640 N.E.2d at 44. In Kinsey, we explained that if the trial court considers the factors enumerated in Indiana Code Subsections 31-1-11.5-12(a) and (b), [3] and then finds the Guidelines' amount to be unjust or inappropriate, the court may state its factual basis for deviation and order a modification which deviates from the Guideline's presumptive amount. Id. at 43, 44 (holding trial court's $60 per week deviation not erroneous). The Guidelines reflect this approach. See Child Supp.G. 3(F)(2). David alleges the trial court erred by ordering him to pay $70.49 in weekly child support, a sum which exceeds the Guidelines' presumptive amount by $20. We cannot agree. The evidence at trial revealed that David purchased a boat, a truck and a car in the twenty-six months between the dissolution and request for modification. R. 263. He also managed the added expenses of owning and mattaining both a primary residence and a vacation home, owning and maintaining two other vehicles from the years before the divorce, and traveling to England three times a year. R. 263, 213-14. This evidence confirmed that David's expenditures and net worth suggested strongly that he could afford to contribute more than $50 a week towards supporting his son. [4] The trial judge conducted a meticulous accounting of the relevant income statistics for both David and Susan before ordering a deviation from the Guidelines. [5] We therefore hold that the trial court's order of $70.49 and its conclusion that David had the ability to pay an amount beyond what his income suggested was not clearly erroneous. In his summary of the issues, David claims that the trial court unfairly relied on his net worth when figuring the parties' respective support obligations without considering Susan's net worth. He makes no cogent argument on this point, as required by Ind Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7), but we note that the trial court laboriously considered the financial resources of both parties in accordance with Indiana Code § 31-1-11.5-12(a)(1) (West Supp.1994).