Custard v. CustardCustard v. Custard
Both husband and wife are employed by the post office. Her gross salary is $1,851.85 per month. His gross salary is $1,554 per month. The two children are nine years and twenty months old, respectively.
The wife submitted an itemized list of expenses1 and testified she has the following monthly expenses now that she did not have at thе original rule when she was living with her mother:
Rent_________________________________ $ 350.00 Electricity__________________________ 100.00 Telephone____________________________ 25.00 Food_________________________________ 200.00 Laundry & cleaning___________________ 35.00 Transportation_______________________ 120.00 Miscellaneоus School Expenses for the School age Child for Field Trips, etc.________________________________ 20.00 _________ $ 850.00
The parties settled the community in April about the time of the original setting and at that time the wife received $2,000.00 (of which she lent her husband $400.00) and accepted the obligation to pay an account at Borg Warner, Universal Furniture and G.M.A.C. She listed these as monthly expenses but the judge pointed out that it was part of the settlement agreement. She also
The husband testified he has the following monthly expenses.2
House Note___________________________ $ 754.13 Food_________________________________ 100.00 Utilities____________________________ 104.00 Insurance (including auto ins.)______ 134.00 Blue Crоss (including his wife and children)___________________________ 42.00 Life Insurance (for children)________ 22.60
The husband has been going to college at night and received a VA allowance of $493. However, he is failing one of the courses because he is taking on too heavy a work load and expects to cut back from 12 hours per semester to 6 hours. The VA stipend does not include expenses and tuition, which he is required to pay.
Appellant contends: (1) She is entitled to an increase in the award due to a change in circumstances; (2) the award is mаnifestly erroneous; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to order her husband to liquidate his assets.
Both parties agree that the movеr seeking an increase in child support must prove a change in circumstances since the award sought to be revised was made. Wasson v. Wasson, La.App. 402 So.2d 718; Lucien v. Lucien, La.App. 378 So.2d 518; and Stolier v. Stolier, La.App. 357 So.2d 1334.
It is not disputed that plaintiff was receiving free rent, food, telephone, etc., at the time of the original judgment when shе was living with her mother. Her circumstances have indeed changed. She is not required to impose upon her mother for the support of the children, nor is her mother required to shoulder the burden.
The support of minor children is the responsibility of both parents according to the children‘s needs and the means of the parents to pay. Chaney v. Chaney, La.App. 402 So.2d 765; Savoie v. Curtis, La.App. 354 So.2d 705; Marcantel v. Marcantel, La.App. 342 So.2d 278; Foster v. Marshall, La.App. 341 So.2d 1354. It is clear that the wife is carrying her burden, the only issuе is whether the husband is bearing his proportionate share. We conclude that the husband should be making a greater contribution to the support of his children.
The trial judge in his reasons for judgment recognized that the amount of support being furnished was inadequatе insofar as the needs of the children were concerned and admonished the husband that he would have to reorganize his finances and pay more in the future. He was led to the conclusion that the obligations of Custard was so great that he could not require him to pay more child support at this time. We are of the opinion that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in giving grеater weight to the husband‘s inability to pay than the necessities of the children and their best interest. In particular Custard is carrying two obligations which cause his financial problems, the first being the house note of $754.13, and the second being the item of $367.48 for repayment of loans or charge account payments. While we agree with the trial judge concerning the problems that Custard is faсing, nevertheless the support of his children must be our first consideration. At the same time, we must recognize that there simply is not enough money available to pay as much support as Mrs. Custard contends to be necessary for the children, and we must reaсh some lower figure considering the ability of both Mr. Custard and Mrs. Custard to pay.
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that a realistic figure for the support of the two children is the sum of $505.00 per month. Mr. Custard is required to pay $65.00 every two weeks, which changed to a monthly basis equals $140.83. In addition he voluntarily provides for the medical bills of the children and also provides for the
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed, аnd it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Barbara West Custard, maintaining her rule for an increase and ordering defendant in rule, Carl Custard, to pay child support in the sum of $100.00 every two weeks, payable every other Friday beginning March 5, 1982. All costs in bоth courts are to be paid by defendant, Carl Custard.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.