Mcleod v. Starnes

723 S.E.2d 198 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

F and M divorced in 1993 following five years of marriage. M received custody of their two minor children, and F was required to pay child support in the amount of $212 per week, which was later reduced to $175 per week by agreement, in addition to thirty-five percent of his annual bonus. F earned approximately $29,000 per year plus a $2,500 bonus. However, his salary steadily increased to over $120,000 per year and his bonus to nearly $30,000 by 2007. In 2008, his salary was almost $250,000. M's income increased and fluctuated from less than $12,000 per year to a peak of approximately $40,000 per year. M never sought modification of F's child support obligation. Collin reached the age of majority and enrolled as a student at college. F wrote an e-mail in March 2006 agreeing to repay all of Collin's student loans upon graduation. He even co-signed a promissory note for Collin's student loans. F also agreed to pick up 'odd expenses from [Collin]'s education' and told Collin to call him whenever he 'needs a little help.' F also took it upon himself in that same letter to unilaterally decrease his weekly child support from $175 to $100. M later acquiesced in this reduction, apparently in consideration of F's assurances that he would support Collin while he was in college. F did not uphold his end of the bargain, nor did he regularly pay the percentage of his bonus as required. M sued seeking an award of college expenses, an increase in child support for Jamie, and attorney's fees and costs. A temporary order was filed in June 2007 that set child support for Jamie at $235 per week, ordered F to contribute $400 per month towards Collin's college expenses, and left intact the thirty-five percent of F's annual bonus payable as support. A final hearing was not done until 2009. In that period, Webb v. Sowell was decided which held that ordering a noncustodial parent to pay college expenses violates equal protection. Based on the “new holding,” the trial court dismissed M’s petition for college expenses and held that F had overpaid the past two years and reduced payments by 15% until the overpayment was covered. M appealed.