Guin v. McWhorter
2017 Ark. App. 463
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2009 with a custody/support agreement; McWhorter initially paid $4,800/month plus 28% of net bonuses. A 2015 mediation agreement set support at $5,500/month plus 15% of bonuses for the two remaining minor children and altered custody (Guin's custody of ZM reduced).
- In 2016 McWhorter (a urologist) petitioned to modify support, alleging a substantial reduction in income: base salary fell from $500,000 to $401,550 and available extra-call pay declined; he continued to receive roughly $60,000/year in bonuses and had investment income.
- Trial evidence: McWhorter presented contracts, pay stubs, tax returns; his affidavit listed ~$16,503/month expenses (including debts). He paid many child-related expenses (clothing, insurance, ZM's car/gas, national track meets) and supported adult children in college.
- Guin had started a business but had not yet earned income; her affidavit showed ~$5,605/month expenses plus debt; she had recently obtained a master’s degree and expected future earnings but was not currently earning.
- Trial court reduced McWhorter’s support to $1,700/month plus 5% of net bonuses, finding a material change (McWhorter’s reduced income), calculating his monthly net income and the chart amount ($4,714.91), and then deviating downward based on joint custody and the expenses McWhorter actually paid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guin) | Defendant's Argument (McWhorter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court provided required calculations/reasoning for large downward deviation from the guideline amount | Trial court failed to supply required calculations and justification for drastic reduction | Court calculated payor income, stated chart amount, and made specific findings justifying deviation (custody/time and expenses paid) | Held: No error; order complied with Admin. Order No. 10 (income, chart amount, findings supporting deviation) |
| Whether reduction in McWhorter’s income constituted a material change in circumstances permitting modification | Guin contended some relied-upon factors (track expenses, Guin’s income) were unchanged and thus modification improper | McWhorter pointed to undisputed reduction in income since prior order | Held: Reduction in income was a material change; sufficient to permit modification |
| Whether the court improperly considered track-meet and adult-children expenses in justifying deviation | Guin argued court improperly relied on track expenses and testimony about adult-children support (discretionary) | McWhorter argued his payment of significant child-related expenses (track, auto, clothing) was a relevant factor under the guidelines | Held: Court did not rely on a finding of changed track expenses; it properly considered expenses McWhorter paid; adult-children testimony did not prejudice Guin |
| Whether the trial court improperly imputed income to Guin or erred by noting her lack of earnings | Guin claimed the court improperly imputed income or erred in treating her current earnings as unchanged | McWhorter pointed out Guin had not yet earned income despite advanced degree; court noted she failed to earn income but did not impute income | Held: Court did not impute income; it only noted Guin had not earned income since the prior order and did not err on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Louton v. Dulaney, 519 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for child-support orders: de novo on the record; abuse of discretion for support amounts)
- Johnson v. Young, 515 S.W.3d 159 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (discussing Administrative Order No. 10 and the family-support chart framework)
- McGee v. McGee, 262 S.W.3d 622 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court's credibility assessments and findings on child support given deference)