{ "id": 11916611, "name": "KATHLEEN HAMMILL, Plaintiff v. JAMES DENNIS CUSACK, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Hammill v. Cusack", "decision_date": "1995-02-21", "docket_number": "No. 9319DC1196", "first_page": "82", "last_page": "87", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 N.C. App. 82" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "89 ALR2d 7", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)" }, { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 736", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "740", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) (Cum. Supp. 1990)" }, { "page": "740" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528011 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) (Cum. Supp. 1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0617-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 S.E.2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "401", "parenthetical": "citing 1989 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 529, \u00a7 9" }, { "page": "400" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527708 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354", "parenthetical": "citing 1989 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 529, \u00a7 9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 S.E.2d 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 N.C. App. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552612 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/24/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 S.E.2d 159", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "determination of changed circumstances and reduction of child support affirmed absent change in child's needs where obligor's income decreased as a result of losing job and borrowing money to start new business" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2395644 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "determination of changed circumstances and reduction of child support affirmed absent change in child's needs where obligor's income decreased as a result of losing job and borrowing money to start new business" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 S.E.2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "823-24" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526364 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E.2d 311", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "312-13", "parenthetical": "sufficient showing of changed circumstances to support child support reduction where obligor's net income decreased because of lowered V.A. benefits and added deductions for social security and income taxes, and obligee's net income had increased" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555658 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "616", "parenthetical": "sufficient showing of changed circumstances to support child support reduction where obligor's net income decreased because of lowered V.A. benefits and added deductions for social security and income taxes, and obligee's net income had increased" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 S.E.2d 96", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 N.C. App. 808", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528024 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "810-11" }, { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/114/0808-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E.2d 116", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 N.C. App. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555154 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/42/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 S.E.2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 N.C. App. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550674 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/34/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "411 S.E.2d 171", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173", "parenthetical": "citing Searl v. Searl, 34 N.C. App. 583, 239 S.E.2d 305 (1977)" }, { "page": "173" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 798", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524379 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "800", "parenthetical": "citing Searl v. Searl, 34 N.C. App. 583, 239 S.E.2d 305 (1977)" }, { "page": "800" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0798-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.7", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 567, "char_count": 11432, "ocr_confidence": 0.738, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8498872023509693e-07, "percentile": 0.840566573572436 }, "sha256": "cec6e58d3889a8afa68053ae0a7a2ac2a5cc8fce3b33834e1d49dfc0b7a51903", "simhash": "1:f172b7eaa6ef7f56", "word_count": 1842 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:31.897721+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges EAGLES and ORR concur.", "Judge ORR concurred prior to 5 January 1995." ], "parties": [ "KATHLEEN HAMMILL, Plaintiff v. JAMES DENNIS CUSACK, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHN, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends the trial court, in reducing previously ordered child support, erred by failing to make findings regarding the minor child\u2019s past expenses or present needs. We disagree.\nPertinent procedural facts are as follows: Under an order of the Trumbull County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, defendant\u2019s child support obligation was set at $570.00'per month. In addition, he was required to pay $46.69 per month for health insurance as well as 77% of all non-covered medical, dental, and optical expenses incurred by the minor child.\nDefendant, a podiatrist, relocated to North Carolina. For a brief period he was unemployed, received no income, and as of 31 October 1992 had accumulated arrearage in the amount of $1,798.47. Plaintiff gave notice of registration of the foreign support order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 52A-29 (1992), and defendant thereafter moved for modification of the support payments decreed therein.\n. At the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion, he presented testimony concerning his current financial situation. Plaintiff did not appear or offer evidence, but was represented by counsel. In its order dated 2 July 1993, the court included the following dispositive findings of fact:\n4. That at the time of the entry of the prior Order the Ohio Court found that Defendant\u2019s gross income was Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Five Dollars ($73,455.00) per year and the Plaintiff\u2019s gross income was Twenty Two Thousand Dollars ($22,000.00) per year.\n5. That since the entry of the Ohio Order there has been a substantial and material change of circumstance to warrant a modification of the Prior Order regarding child support.\n6. That the Defendant has had a substantial reduction in earnings as a result of closing his Ohio practice and moving from Ohio to Rowan County, North Carolina.\n7. That in 1991 Defendant\u2019s gross income was Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars ($35,550.00); that in 1992 Defendant\u2019s gross income was Twenty One Thousand Dollars ($21,000.00).\n8. That since the entry of the Prior Order the Defendant has a new baby one year of age and his wife is pregnant with another child.\nBased upon its findings, the court concluded there existed a \u201csubstantial and material change of circumstance to warrant a modification\u201d of the Ohio support order. The court thereafter computed defendant\u2019s support obligation as $233.00 per month upon reference to Worksheet A of the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines). Defendant was also directed to continue paying $46.69 per month for health insurance, but his share of all uninsured medical bills for the'minor child was reduced to 47%.\nThe primary focus of plaintiff\u2019s argument is her contention that a child support modification order must include findings, based upon competent evidence, relative to the minor child\u2019s actual past expenses and present reasonable needs. The failure of the trial court to recite such findings in the order sub judice, plaintiff continues, and the subsequent conclusion that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred, based solely upon evidence of a decrease in defendant\u2019s income, constituted reversible error. We find plaintiff\u2019s assertions unpersuasive.\nRegistration of a foreign support order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 52A-24 (1992) et seq. results in treatment of the order as if issued by a court of this State. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 52A-30 (1992). Following registration, a party may thereafter seek modification under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.7(b) (1987), which states in pertinent part:\nWhen an order for support of a minor child has been entered by a court of another state, a court of this State may, upon gaining jurisdiction, and upon a showing of changed circumstances, enter a new order for support which modifies or supersedes such order for support, ....\nId.\nThe burden of demonstrating changed circumstances rests upon the moving party. Davis v. Risley, 104 N.C. App. 798, 800, 411 S.E.2d 171, 173 (1991) (citing Searl v. Searl, 34 N.C. App. 583, 239 S.E.2d 305 (1977)). Plaintiff relies upon Davis for her contention that the changed circumstances must relate exclusively to \u201cchild-oriented expenses.\u201d Id. at 800, 411 S.E.2d at 172-73 (citing Gilmore v. Gilmore, 42 N.C. App. 560, 563, 257 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1979)). Nonetheless, it is now settled that a significant involuntary decrease in a child support obligor\u2019s income satisfies the necessary showing even in the absence of any change affecting the child\u2019s needs. Pittman v. Pittman, 114 N.C. App. 808, 810-11, 443 S.E.2d 96, 97-98 (1994); see also Springs v. Springs, 25 N.C. App. 615, 616, 214 S.E.2d 311, 312-13 (1975) (sufficient showing of changed circumstances to support child support reduction where obligor\u2019s net income decreased because of lowered V.A. benefits and added deductions for social security and income taxes, and obligee\u2019s net income had increased), and O\u2019Neal v. Wynn, 64 N.C. App. 149, 151-53, 306 S.E.2d 822, 823-24 (1983), aff\u2019d, 310 N.C. 621, 313 S.E.2d 159 (1984) (determination of changed circumstances and reduction of child support affirmed absent change in child\u2019s needs where obligor\u2019s income decreased as a result of losing job and borrowing money to start new business). This is in recognition of \u201cthe ultimate objective in setting awards for child support[, that is,] to secure support commensurate with the needs of the children and the ability of the [obligor] to meet the needs.\u201d Pittman, 114 N.C. App. at 810, 443 S.E.2d at 97 (citing Gibson v. Gibson, 24 N.C. App. 520, 211 S.E.2d 522 (1975)) (emphasis added).\nOnce a movant has met the burden of establishing changed circumstances, the trial court then \u201cproceeds to follow the Guidelines and to compute the appropriate amount of child support.\u201d Davis, 104 N.C. App. at 800, 411 S.E.2d at 173. The Guidelines apply to modification of child support orders as well as to initial orders. Greer v. Greer, 101 N.C. App. 351, 354, 399 S.E.2d 399, 401 (1991) (citing 1989 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 529, \u00a7 9).\nUnder the Guidelines, the trial court, unless requested in advance by a party, is not required either to receive evidence, make findings of fact, or enter conclusions of law \u201c \u2018relating to the reasonable needs of the child for support and the relative ability of each parent to [pay or] provide support.\u2019 \u201d Browne v. Browne, 101 N.C. App. 617, 624, 400 S.E.2d 736, 740 (1991) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) (Cum. Supp. 1990)). In Browne, we stated the rationale underlying the advance request requirement as follows:\nThis requirement for advance notice eliminates needless eviden-tiary hearings and needless fact finding and conclusion making. The party required to give the advance notice is the party requesting a variance from the guidelines.... Absent a timely and proper request for a variance of the guidelines, support set consistent with the guidelines is conclusively presumed to be in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education and maintenance.\nId. (emphasis added).\nUpon review of the record herein, we find no request by any party for deviation from the Guidelines nor any request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, the child support amount ordered by the trial court is \u201cconclusively presumed\u201d to be adequate for the minor child\u2019s reasonable needs, Browne, 101 N.C. App. at 624, 400 S.E.2d at 740, and it was not error for the court to fail to make findings and enter conclusions concerning the child\u2019s needs and expenses.\nNotwithstanding, plaintiff insists Greer, 101 N.C. App. 351, 399 S.E.2d 399, mandates such findings. Her reliance upon Greer is misplaced. The order reviewed therein was issued 14 November 1989. Id. at 352, 399 S.E.2d at 400. It was therefore considered in light of the Guidelines in effect at that time which provided that \u201ca court determining a parent\u2019s child support obligation shall. . . from the evidence find the facts relating to the reasonable needs of the child for support . . . .\u201d Id. at 354, 399 S.E.2d at 401 (citing A.O.C., Child Support Guidelines, AOC-A-162 (New 10/89). As a result, the Greer trial court was indeed obligated to \u201cfind the facts relating to the reasonable needs of the child for support. ...\u201d Id.\nHowever, the order in the case sub judice was issued 29 June 1993. The Guidelines in effect as of that date do not contain the requirement cited above, and findings of fact are prescribed therein only to justify deviation from the presumptive amount of child support. A.O.C., Child Support Guidelines, AOC-A-162 (Rev. 8/91). Hence, Greer is inapposite and the trial court was under no obligation to make findings of fact absent a specific request therefor. G.S. \u00a7 50-13.4(c).\nAffirmed.\nJudges EAGLES and ORR concur.\nJudge ORR concurred prior to 5 January 1995.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Elizabeth J. Weese, for the plaintiff-appellant.", "No brief filed for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KATHLEEN HAMMILL, Plaintiff v. JAMES DENNIS CUSACK, Defendant\nNo. 9319DC1196\n(Filed 21 February 1995)\n1. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 430 (NCI4th)\u2014 child support\u2014 registration of foreign order \u2014 modification of order\nRegistration of a foreign child support order pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 52A-24 et seq. results in treatment of the order as if issued by a court in this state, and a party may thereafter seek modification of the order under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-13.7(b).\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 1078 et seq.\n2. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 445 (NCI4th)\u2014 child support\u2014 changed circumstances \u2014 involuntary income reduction\nA significant involuntary decrease in a child support obligor\u2019s income satisfies the necessary showing of changed circumstances for modification of the child support order even in the absence of any change affecting the child\u2019s needs.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 1078 et seq.\nChange in financial condition or needs of parents or children as ground for modification of decree for child support payments. 89 ALR2d 7.\n3. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 392.1 (NCX4th)\u2014 child support guidelines \u2014 applicability to modification of order\nThe child support guidelines apply to modification of child support orders as well as to the initial orders.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 1078 et seq.\nChange in financial condition or needs of parents or children as ground for modification of decree for child support payments. 89 ALR2d 7.\n4. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 .445 (NCI4th)\u2014 modification of child support \u2014 involuntary income reduction \u2014 findings of reasonable needs not required\nThe trial court did not err by reducing a child support obligation based upon a substantial involuntary reduction in the obligor\u2019s income without making findings and conclusions concerning the child\u2019s needs and expenses absent a party\u2019s request in advance for deviation from the child support guidelines or for such findings of fact and conclusions of law. The amount of support set by the court pursuant to the guidelines was thus conclusively presumed to be adequate for the child\u2019s reasonable needs.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 1078 et seq.\nChange in financial condition or needs of parents or children as ground for modification of decree for child support payments. 89 ALR2d 7.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 29 June 1993 by Judge Frank M. Montgomery in Rowan County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 September 1994.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Elizabeth J. Weese, for the plaintiff-appellant.\nNo brief filed for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0082-01", "first_page_order": 114, "last_page_order": 119 }