{
  "id": 8896673,
  "name": "KAY SCHOTT TREVILLIAN, Plaintiff v. MARK A. TREVILLIAN, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trevillian v. Trevillian",
  "decision_date": "2004-05-04",
  "docket_number": "No. COA03-802",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "226",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "164 N.C. App. 223"
    }
  ],
  "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(c)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "579 S.E.2d 120",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "122"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N.C. App. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9186228
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "287"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/157/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "453 S.E.2d 531",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "535-36"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.C. App. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916361
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "26-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/118/0019-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 6359,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4452188276084305e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6539738417181851
    },
    "sha256": "faab0642c5fd26346a24aa826d15f147e6254fb7cd54ab89383fa5a9faa99331",
    "simhash": "1:c9f1c06abbcfe3c4",
    "word_count": 975
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:16.246957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HUNTER and TYSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "KAY SCHOTT TREVILLIAN, Plaintiff v. MARK A. TREVILLIAN, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nDefendant Mark A. Trevillian contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a reduction in child support and considered improper criteria for modification of child support. We disagree and affirm the order below.\nPlaintiff Kay Schott Trevillian and Defendant are formerly husband and wife with one child born during their marriage. By order dated 25 April 2001, the trial court granted Plaintiff primary custody of their child. Based upon Defendant\u2019s income, of approximately $300,000 per year for 1999 and 2000, the trial court ordered Defendant to pay $2,500 per month in child support. Defendant\u2019s income increased to $360,000 in 2001, but Plaintiff did not seek an increase in child support. However, following a reduction in Defendant\u2019s income in 2002 to $227,400 gross with a net income of $151,400 after taxes, Defendant moved for a reduction in child support. In denying Defendant\u2019s motion for a reduction in child support, the trial court found that \u201ceven after paying family related expenses and support obligations, the Defendant was left with a net of over $5,000 per month for his own personal expenses.\u201d Therefore, the trial court concluded \u201cDefendant\u2019s drop in income did not constitute a substantial and material change in circumstances.\u201d Defendant appeals.\nDefendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a reduction in child support because a 25% involuntary reduction in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances warranting child support modification.\n\u201cThe burden of demonstrating changed circumstances rests upon the moving party. Once the threshold issue of substantial change in circumstances has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court then proceeds to follow the [North Carolina Child Support] Guidelines and to compute the appropriate amount of child support. The Guidelines apply to modification of child support orders as well as to initial orders. Thus modification of a child support order involves a two-step process. The court must first determine a substantial change of circumstances has taken place; only then does it proceed to apply the Guidelines to calculate the applicable amount of support.\u201d McGee v. McGee, 118 N.C. App. 19, 26-27, 453 S.E.2d 531, 535-36 (1995).\nIn North Carolina,\n[t]he Guidelines apply in cases in which the parents\u2019 combined adjusted gross income is equal to or less than $15,000 per month ($180,000 per year). For cases with higher combined adjusted gross income, child support should be determined on a case-by-case basis, provided that the amount of support awarded may not be lower than the maximum basic child support obligation shown in the Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations.\nChild Support Guidelines, \u201cDetermination of Support in Cases Involving High Combined Income,\u201d Annotated Rules of North Carolina (2002). To determine a party\u2019s monthly adjusted gross income, \u201cthe amount of child support payments actually made by a party under any pre-existing court order(s) or separation agreements) should be deducted from the party\u2019s gross income.\u201d See Child Support Guidelines, \u201cPre-existing Child Support Obligations and Responsibility for Other Children,\u201d Annotated Rules of North Carolina (2002).\nAt the time of the child support modification hearing, Defendant\u2019s monthly gross income was $18,950.00. Defendant had a pre-existing support order of $2,500 and paid $1,269.00 in child support for a child from a previous marriage. After deducting Defendant\u2019s pre-existing obligation and responsibility for other children from his monthly gross income [$18,950.00-($2500.00 + 1269.00)], his monthly adjusted gross income was $15,181.00. At this amount, the child support guidelines are inapplicable and child support is to be determined by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. See Child Support Guidelines, Annotated Rules of North Carolina (2002). Thus, assuming this reduction constituted a substantial change in circumstances, the trial court would have determined child support by assessing the particular facts of this case. See Child Support Guidelines, \u201cDetermination of Support in Cases Involving High Combined Income,\u201d Annotated Rules of North Carolina (2002).\nThe record indicates the trial court acknowledged Defendant\u2019s income had dropped significantly in 2002. The trial court then considered Defendant\u2019s family related expenses and support obligations and determined Defendant was left with a net of over $5,000 per month for his own personal expenses. Thus, the trial court determined a reduction in child support was unwarranted.\n\u201cChild support orders entered by a trial court are accorded substantial deference by appellate courts and our review is limited to a determination of whether there was a clear abuse of discretion.\u201d Mason v. Erwin, 157 N.C. App. 284, 287, 579 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2003). Under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c), \u201cpayments ordered for the support of a minor child shall be in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education, and maintenance, having due regard to the estates, earnings, conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party, and other facts of the particular case.\u201d As it appears the trial court considered Defendant\u2019s significant reduction in income and its impact upon his ability to support his children and himself, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant\u2019s motion for child support modification.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and TYSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Metcalf & Beal, L.L.P., by Christopher L. Beal, for plaintiff.",
      "C.R. \u201cSkip\" Long, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KAY SCHOTT TREVILLIAN, Plaintiff v. MARK A. TREVILLIAN, Defendant\nNo. COA03-802\n(Filed 4 May 2004)\nChild Support, Custody, and Visitation\u2014 support \u2014 modification \u2014 reduction in income\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant\u2019s motion for child support modification in a case in which the child support guidelines did not apply. The court considered defendant\u2019s significant reduction in income and its impact upon his ability to support his children and himself.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 20 February 2003 by Judge Victoria Roemer, District Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 March 2004.\nMetcalf & Beal, L.L.P., by Christopher L. Beal, for plaintiff.\nC.R. \u201cSkip\" Long, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-01",
  "first_page_order": 255,
  "last_page_order": 258
}