Opinion ID: 1794243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voluntary & Temporary.

Text: Jody argues that the trial court erred in granting modification of Keith's child support obligation as Keith's reduction in income was voluntary and temporary. We disagree. A voluntary change of employment resulting in a reduction of income does not, by itself, foreclose an obligor from seeking modification of a child support obligation. Formerly, an obligor had to demonstrate a material change in circumstances before a child support order would be reduced. See Sweeney v. Hoff, 478 N.W.2d 9, 10 (N.D. 1991). A primary factor in determining whether such a change had occurred was whether there had been a change in the financial circumstances of the parties. Id. Moreover, the voluntariness of the change was also considered when determining whether the change warranted modification of the support award. See id. ; Huffman v. Huffman, 477 N.W.2d 594, 597 (N.D.1991); see also Gabel v. Gabel, 434 N.W.2d 722, 723 (N.D.1989) (cause of change was relevant factor, including whether the change was permanent or temporary and whether it was due to a voluntary act or neglect on the part of the obligor). Thus, under our prior opinions, the voluntary nature of Keith's change in financial circumstances would have been a relevant factor to consider. Now, however, our legislature has authorized and directed periodic review of all child support orders. See Eklund v. Eklund, 538 N.W.2d 182, 185-86 (N.D.1995); see also Garbe v. Garbe, 467 N.W.2d 740, 742-43 (N.D.1991). Consequently, an obligor only has to demonstrate a material change in circumstances to seek modification of a child support order within one year after its entry. NDCC 14-09-08.4(3); see Mahoney, 538 N.W.2d at 192. If the obligor properly seeks to modify an order after one year, NDCC 14-09-08.4(3) requires the trial court to modify the obligation to conform the amount of child support payment to that required under the child support guidelines. Keith did not have to prove a material change in circumstances because his support order was over one year old. Since Keith is entitled to periodic review of his child support obligation, it necessarily follows that he is not absolutely precluded from seeking the modification when, due to a voluntary change of employment, application of the guidelines to his present income will reduce his support obligation. Jody asserts that the appropriate relief for Keith's temporary reduction in income would be for a delay in making a portion of the child support payments rather than a permanent reduction in the child support payment. See Schmidt v. Reamann, 523 N.W.2d 70, 73 (N.D.1994); Hartman v. Hartman, 466 N.W.2d 155, 157 (N.D.1991). We agree that it will frequently be better to defer payment of part of the support payments, without reducing the obligation, when the obligor is temporarily unable to meet the obligation. However, considering the duration and extent of the reduction in Keith's income during more than two years since the last order, we do not believe that the trial court was clearly erroneous in deciding that a modification of this support order was justified. Like Keith, Jody is entitled to seek modification of the support order at least annually. NDCC 14-09-08.4(3). If and when Keith's business earns more, Jody can have the support increased accordingly.