Wetherington v. Wetherington, 291 Ga. 722

Husband and Wife divorced 2008; settlement tied Husband’s income (~$300,000) to $7,000/month child support and shared condo costs.
Final divorce decree set presumptive support around $2,884/month based on Husband’s $25,000 monthly gross income, but deviation to $7,000/month was approved under a negotiated agreement.
Husband later sought downward modification in 2008 based on reduced income; temporary reduction to $5,950/month occurred in 2009; contempt claims arose in 2010.
At 2011 hearing, Husband described decline in income since 2007 and 2008; trial court reduced/adjusted incongruently and found partial contempt against both parties.
This Court granted discretionary review to challenge the modification process and related contempt rulings; issues hinge on whether guidelines were applied and whether modification was warranted.
Court remanded for proper consideration of substantial change in circumstances and application of child support guidelines with written findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether modification followed change-in-circumstances and guidelines	Husband; substantial change existed; guidelines apply	Wife; deviation from agreement permissible; modification not required	Modification required under guidelines; reversal and remand
Whether Wife’s reliance estoppel bars modification	Husband was not validly waiving modification rights	Settlement lacked explicit waiver of modification right	No valid waiver; remand for proper modification analysis
Whether condo-expense award amount was correctly calculated	Amount due was $28,806.62; trial court erred	Husband’s asserted amount $19,200 was correct	Trial court erred; adjust to $28,806.62 as of hearing date
Whether contempt findings for child support were proper	Husband had ability to pay but willfully unpaid	Economic circumstances prevented payment	Court’s contempt findings affirmed or remanded for proper calculations; discretionary review warranted

Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439 (1999) (change-in-circumstances threshold for modification and need to apply guidelines)
Stowell v. Huguenard, 288 Ga. 628 (2011) (guidelines apply to modifications; must consider guidelines in order to modify)
Dean v. Dean, 289 Ga. 664 (2011) (waiver of modification right requires express, clear waiver language)
Hulett v. Sutherland, 276 Ga. 596 (2003) (income determination binding after final decree)
Dyals v. Dyals, 281 Ga. 894 (2007) (appellant cannot complain of error induced by his own conduct)
Autrey v. Autrey, 288 Ga. 283 (2010) (clear evidentiary standard for set-aside or clear error)