Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutetrialmotionprobatedivorce
statutetrialmotionprobatedivorce

Related Cases

Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo, 329 F.Supp.3d 1000
View Case »
In re Grand Jury Investigation (General Motors Corp.), 32 F.R.D. 175
View Case »
Locke v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 5665066
View Case »
McCullough v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 194 F.Supp. 686, 4 Fed.R.Serv.2d 697, 129 U.S.P.Q. 400
View Case »
Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S9
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Morales v. Morales, 464 Mass. 507, 984 N.E.2d 748

Facts

The parties' child was born on August 4, 1998, and the mother and father divorced on May 5, 2008, with a child support order requiring the father to pay $172 per week. After the father received a promotion in August 2008, the mother filed a complaint in April 2009 to modify the child support order, claiming the father's increased salary warranted a modification. The trial judge dismissed the complaint, finding no material and substantial change in circumstances, and did not include the father's overtime income in her calculations.

The parties' child was born on August 4, 1998. The mother and father were divorced by a judgment of divorce nisi dated May 5, 2008, that granted shared legal custody of the child and physical custody to the mother. The judgment included a child support order directing the father to pay $172 per week in child support to the mother. In August, 2008, the father, a correction officer at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley, received a promotion to the position of inner perimeter officer, resulting in an increase in his salary and his average weekly income from overtime.

Issue

Did the trial judge apply the correct legal standard for modifying the child support order, and was there a proper basis for the dismissal of the mother's complaint?

Did the trial judge apply the correct legal standard for modifying the child support order, and was there a proper basis for the dismissal of the mother's complaint?

Rule

Modification of child support orders is governed by G.L. c. 208, § 28, which requires modification if there is an inconsistency between the existing order and the amount that would result from application of the child support guidelines.

Modification of child support orders is governed by G.L. c. 208, § 28, which requires modification if there is an inconsistency between the existing order and the amount that would result from application of the child support guidelines.

Analysis

The court found that the trial judge incorrectly applied a material and substantial change in circumstances standard instead of the inconsistency standard mandated by statute. The judge's failure to consider the father's increased income and the guidelines led to an erroneous dismissal of the mother's modification request. The court emphasized that the statutory language requires modification whenever there is an inconsistency, without the need for a material change.

The court found that the trial judge incorrectly applied a material and substantial change in circumstances standard instead of the inconsistency standard mandated by statute.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case to the Probate and Family Court for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standard.

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case to the Probate and Family Court for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standard.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the former wife, as the Supreme Judicial Court's decision to remand the case allows her to pursue the modification of child support under the correct legal standard.

The prevailing party is the former wife, as the Supreme Judicial Court's decision to remand the case allows her to pursue the modification of child support under the correct legal standard.

You must be