Opinion ID: 2443972
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenge to the Amount of the Pendente Lite Award

Text: Both Upson and Wallace argue that the November 22, 2004 order of pendente lite child support in the amount of $4,000 per month, and the August 5, 2009 order affirming that order and granting $4,000 per month to Upson retroactive to the birth of Georgiana, were an abuse of discretion and clearly erroneous as a matter of law. We review child support orders for an abuse of discretion, unless the matter involves the application of a legal principle, in which case our review is de novo. Sollars v. Cully, 904 A.2d 373, 375 (D.C. 2006). Upson argues that the amount of $4,000 per month is an arbitrary and capricious amount, determined with utter disregard for the consideration of the statutory requirements. She asserts that the court did not adequately take into account the standard of living of the biological father, [16] and that a higher monthly support payment was necessary in such an extraordinary high income case. Although Wallace agrees that the $4,000 amount was erroneous, he argues that it was an excessive amount, not entered to maintain the status quo,  but was determined without even proffers of the evidence on the income of either parent, the custodial arrangement for the child or any of the other factors relevant to a ruling. Under D.C.Code § 16-916(a), parents have an obligation to support their minor children, and the trial court may, in its discretion, order a parent to pay pendente lite child support. See also W.M. v. D.S.C., 591 A.2d 837, 842 (D.C.1991) (holding that both children born in and out of wedlock may receive pendente lite support).  Pendente lite  is defined as pending the lawsuit; during the actual progress of a suit; during litigation and so pendente lite child support is, by definition, interim and transient[.] Johnson v. Washington, 756 A.2d 411, 416-17 (D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). We agree with Associate Judge McKenna's conclusion in her August 5, 2009 order, that Magistrate Judge Diaz's November 22, 2004 order awarding Upson pendente lite child support in the amount of $4,000 per month was not an abuse of discretion. Despite some inappropriate statements made while urging the parties to settle, the record reflects that Magistrate Judge Diaz properly considered the incomes and lifestyles of the parties, the reasonable needs of the minor child, and the Child Support Guidelines in determining support. The Child Support Guidelines (Guidelines), codified at D.C.Code § 16-916.01 (2009 Supp.), generally govern child support awards in the District of Columbia, including pendente lite awards. See Hight v. Tucker, 757 A.2d 756, 759 (D.C.2000); D.C.Code § 46-301.01 (defining support order to include temporary orders). At the time of the hearing before Associate Judge McKenna, the 1990 version of the Guidelines was undergoing major revision and the District of Columbia Child Support Guideline Commission (Commission) had publicly released its Report and Final Recommendations (Report) in July 2004, including a revised version of the Guidelines. The record reflects that Magistrate Judge Diaz considered both the 1990 Guidelines and the revised version accompanying the Commission's Report when determining the appropriate amount of support in this case. Although the Guidelines apply presumptively in most cases, see D.C.Code § 16-916.01(p), the most recent version of the Guidelines states that they shall not apply presumptively in cases where the parents' combined adjusted gross income exceeds $240,000 per year[,] D.C.Code § 16-916.01(h), while the older 1990 version did not presumptively apply to a combined income exceeding $75,000 per year. Magistrate Judge Diaz considered that the combination of Wallace's annual income of $2.1 million [17] and Upson's lack of any income was well beyond the $75,000 cap which applied at that time, that Wallace was already paying $4,000 per month in support for three other children from a previous marriage, and that Wallace would likely be obligated to pay $3,091 per month if the case had been filed in Virginia, where child support guidelines did not cap out at higher income levels. The record also reflects that the court considered a financial statement, provided by Upson to the court, listing the expenses related to the child. Wallace argues that Upson was required to prove the expenses that she incurred on behalf of Georgiana. But, we have held that the trial court is not required to base a child support award on the child's documented expenses where the noncustodial parent's income exceeds the highest amount to which the Guidelines presumptively apply. Galbis v. Nadal, 626 A.2d 26, 31 (D.C. 1993). Rather, the court can award a level of support commensurate with the income and lifestyle of the noncustodial parent. Id. Thus, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion after considering the relevant factors, including Wallace's income and lifestyle, and concluding that $4,000 per month was not an inappropriate award to support the parties' child. [18]