In Re Marriage of Rottscheit v. Dumler
While a trial court can consider incarceration when as a basis for a request for a modification in child support, the fact of incarceration by itself neither mandates nor prevents modification.
Motte v. Motte
Stipulation making future child support unmodifiable in the event of a change in placement is against public policy and void. However, stipulation forgiving arrearages is not contrary to public policy.
Jalovec v. Jalovec
Restrictive child support provisions are against public policy. Further, a substantial change of circumstance occurred when James received placement of one of the children; therefore, the trial court properly entertained the motion to modify child support.
Stevenson v. Stevenson
Trial court properly ordered retroactive child support where Husband failed to make proper financial disclosure.
Huhn v. Stuckmann
Stipulation limiting ability to seek a modification of family support is against public policy and cannot provide a basis for estoppel.
In Re the Finding of Contempt In Gilbert
Contempt order affirmed where payor (who was a lawyer) did not disclose interest in class action lawsuit and did not report a substantial change in income. (Not published, but citable)
May v. May
Nonmodifiable floors on child support are enforceable as long as they are no longer than 33 months.
Tierney v. Berger
Evidence of substantial change in circumstances was overwhelming. Several factors would “probably have qualified for a substantial change in circumstances.”
In Re Marriage of Sommerfield
Father with custody of child from previous marriage is a serial payor within meaning of HSS 80 – no need that there be a court order for support; husband was legally responsible to raise child.
Lendman v. Lendman
Finding that percentage standards would be unfair to child is affirmed – husband’s income fluctuates in relation to his business and trial court held that it would be in the best interests of the child to have a set amount of support.