Strunk v. Strunk
294 Ga. 280
| Ga. | 2013Background
- Monica and Martin Strunk divorced in 2008; the 2008 judgment imputed $75,000 annual income to Martin and ordered $2,001.60/month child support plus alimony. Martin later defaulted and was jailed briefly in 2009.
- Martin filed a modification petition in 2009 seeking downward modification of child support; the modification hearing occurred in October 2012 after he remarried and moved to Florida, working as a mortgage loan processor with $48,000 base pay.
- At the 2012 hearing parties consented to a $96,000 arrearage, withdrawal of a contempt claim about personal property, and joint legal custody with wife as primary physical custodian.
- The trial court found a material change in circumstances, imputed Martin’s income at $52,500, awarded child support of $794/month starting Dec. 2012, ordered Martin to provide health insurance and gave a $300/month credit, allowed a $200/month travel deviation, and reduced support for a newborn living in Martin’s household.
- For the $96,000 arrearage the court ordered payments of $250/month until the support obligation ended and then $1,000/month until paid, and omitted the statutory continuing-garnishment language from the modification order.
- Wife appealed claiming error as to (1) existence of material change, (2) inadequate findings for travel deviation, (3) health-insurance credit, (4) credit for newborn in household, and (5) court’s authority to set arrearage payment schedule and omission of garnishment language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in Martin’s income/financial status justified downward modification | Wife: Trial court clearly erred; no substantial change supporting modification | Martin: Mortgage-industry downturn, new stable employment and changed economic reality justify modification | Court: Affirms modification; factual findings not clearly erroneous and court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court made required written findings to justify $200 travel deviation | Wife: Order lacks statutory findings showing why any deviation (not just denial of $700) was appropriate | Martin: Court considered travel and awarded lesser deviation | Court: Reverses travel-deviation portion and remands — trial court must make the specific written findings required by OCGA § 19-6-15(c)(2) |
| Whether allowing $300/month credit for health insurance was erroneous | Wife: Credit improper or unsupported | Martin: He provides COBRA/employer coverage at reasonable cost; credit appropriate | Court: Affirms — ordering coverage and $300 credit was within discretion |
| Whether credit/reduction for newborn in Martin’s household was improper without documentary proof | Wife: No documentary proof of parent-child relationship as required by statute | Martin: Financial affidavit and testimony established the newborn lives with him; wife didn’t object at hearing | Court: Affirms — evidence and lack of contemporaneous objection supported the adjustment |
| Whether trial court could fix timing/manner of paying $96,000 arrearage and omit mandatory garnishment language | Wife: Trial court exceeded authority in modification action by fixing arrearage payment schedule and removing garnishment remedy; statutory garnishment language required | Martin: Relies on contempt-related authority to justify payment schedule | Court: Reverses order portion setting payment schedule and requiring postponement of large payments; trial court exceeded its authority and curtailed wife’s enforcement remedies; directs that garnishment language be added on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 291 Ga. 762 (review standard; findings must not be clearly erroneous)
- Facey v. Facey, 281 Ga. 367 (modification based on changed circumstances)
- Brogdon v. Brogdon, 290 Ga. 618 (requirement for written findings when deviating from guidelines)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 288 Ga. 670 (health-insurance credit and ordering coverage within court’s discretion)
- Brookins v. Brookins, 257 Ga. 205 (available remedies to enforce child support; election of remedies not required)
- Dept. of Human Resources v. Chambers, 211 Ga. App. 763 (collection/enforcement remedies for child support; cannot limit remedies)
- Hill v. Hill, 219 Ga. App. 247 (trial court may not limit remedies to collect arrearage)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 266 Ga. 516 (contempt proceedings appropriate vehicle to determine timing/manner of arrearage payments)