499 S.W.3d 266
Ky.2016Background
- Parents never married; child Kyra born 2010. Mother (McCarty) has low income (~$1,050/month), lives with her parents and shares a bedroom with Kyra. Father (Faried) is an NBA player with high income (salary + endorsements) and substantial claimed business and personal expenses.
- McCarty moved for child support in 2012; a temporary order required Faried to pay $2,000/month and cover health insurance and daycare. The court warned any final increase could be retroactive to the motion date.
- At a half-day evidentiary hearing each parent testified about family finances and Kyra’s needs; experts presented calculations of Faried’s net income. McCarty submitted a monthly budget of roughly $5,000; the parties’ suggested ranges were $2,575–$5,000.
- Bath Circuit Court found combined parental income far exceeded the statutory guideline table and, after specific findings of Kyra’s reasonable needs, ordered Faried to pay $4,250/month (plus a $500/month education fund initially), retroactive to October 1, 2012. The court amended some provisions thereafter.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, finding the trial court’s findings speculative and insufficient to support deviation above the guideline table and objecting to retroactivity. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed and reinstated the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCarty) | Defendant's Argument (Faried) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may set child support above the statutory guideline table when combined parental income exceeds the table cap | Trial court may use discretion to set support above the table based on child’s reasonable needs and parents’ financial circumstances; McCarty’s testimony and exhibits supported needs | Faried argued the award was arbitrary, relied on speculative testimony, and improperly deviated from guidelines without specific supporting findings | Court upheld trial court: deviation allowed if based on child’s best interest with specific supportive findings and a reasonable award in light of the record |
| Whether trial court’s findings (housing, extracurriculars, etc.) were speculative and insufficient | McCarty provided concrete evidence: rental inquiry for $900/month, listing/payment projections for houses, testimony of needs—need not have incurred expenses before award | Faried said requests were speculative and not supported by invoices; Court of Appeals relied on Bell and Downing to find insufficiency | Court held findings were not speculative here; initial establishment of support does not require the same proof as modification, and the trial court may award for foreseeable needs even if not yet incurred |
| Proper standard and role of appellate review when support exceeds guidelines | Deference to trial court’s discretion and credibility determinations; appellate court should not substitute its own judgment | Faried urged reversal for abuse of discretion where findings were inadequate | Court reiterated abuse-of-discretion standard: affirm if trial court made specific supportive findings and award is reasonable in light of record; reversed Court of Appeals for substituting its judgment |
| Retroactivity of increased support to date of motion | Retroactivity is within trial court’s discretion; temporary order warned increase could be retroactive | Faried argued retroactivity reimbursed McCarty for expenses she never incurred and was therefore improper | Court upheld retroactivity: trial court may set effective date (here warned in temporary order) and awarded support for needs existing as of motion date |
Key Cases Cited
- Downing v. Downing, 45 S.W.3d 449 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001) (trial courts must base awards above guideline cap on specific findings tied to the child’s realistic needs, not mere extrapolation)
- Bell v. Cartwright, 277 S.W.3d 631 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009) (vacating above-guideline award lacking specific findings and relying on speculative requests)
- Plattner v. Plattner, 228 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review: child support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Giacalone v. Giacalone, 876 S.W.2d 616 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994) (trial court has discretion to set effective date of support awards)
- Ullman v. Ullman, 302 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. 1967) (discusses retroactivity and trial court discretion)