Marriage of Herrera v. Herrera, 298 P.3d 1209

Mother and Father, divorced in 2005, shared custody of four children; Father obtained full custody in 2006 with no child support from Mother.
In May 2010, Mother received a $2,000,000 settlement from a civil sexual abuse lawsuit against the former sheriff and county board.
On July 1, 2010, Father moved to modify child support seeking payment from Mother.
Mother moved for change of venue arguing bias due to her civil suit; the district court denied the change of venue and stated it could be fair and impartial.
An evidentiary hearing followed; parties disclosed income and the Mother’s settlement disbursements were examined for purposes of calculating support.
The district court ultimately calculated Mother’s income including settlement proceeds and deviated from the guidelines with upward adjustments for periods in 2011–2013, leading to an award of child support to Father.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of change of venue was an abuse of discretion	Herrera argues the venue change was necessary due to bias	Espinosa asserts no showing of bias; district court acted within discretion	No abuse; venue denial affirmed
Whether settlement proceeds were properly treated as income under §118B	Mother contends settlement is not income for support purposes	Father argues settlement falls within passive income including gifts under §118B	Settlement proceeds properly included as income under §118B(A)(3) as gifts fall within scope and promote child support purpose
Whether upward deviation from guidelines was properly justified	Mother contends deviation lacked justification and evidence	Court followed §119(B) to determine excess beyond guidelines given high income	Upward deviation upheld; computation within discretion and §§ 119(B) compliance

State ex rel Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Baggett, 1999 OK 68, 990 P.2d 235 (Okla. 1999) (equitable review of child support; weighing evidence)
Huchteman v. Huchteman, 1976 OK 174, 557 P.2d 427 (Okla. 1976) (modification standard; weight of evidence and discretion)
Williamson v. Williamson, 2005 OK 6, 107 P.3d 589 (Okla. 2005) (deference to trial court on child support discretion)
Heffron v. District Court, 2003 OK 75, 77 P.3d 1069 (Okla. 2003) (statutory interpretation review for child support)
Stevens v. Blevins, 1995 OK 6, 890 P.2d 936 (Okla. 1995) (burden to show necessity of change of venue)
Gulf Oil Co. v. Woodson, 1972 OK 164, 505 P.2d 484 (Okla. 1972) (change of venue standard; discretion)
Archer v. Archer, 1991 OK CIV APP 28, 813 P.2d 1059 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991) (appropriate excess consideration when income exceeds guideline amount)
In re M.B. and A.B., 1998 OK CIV APP 35, 956 P.2d 171 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998) (settlement proceeds as income for child support purposes)
Kerby v. Kerby, 2002 OK 91, 60 P.3d 1038 (Okla. 2002) (recognition that children benefit from increased non-custodial income)
Lairmore v. Lairmore, 1980 OK 141, 617 P.2d 892 (Okla. 1980) (automatic future changes in child support improper)
Pierce v. Pierce, 2001 OK 97, 39 P.3d 791 (Okla. 2001) (general rule on reliance on unsupported propositions)