Huhn v. Stuckmann
Stipulation limiting ability to seek a modification of family support is against public policy and cannot provide a basis for estoppel.
Stipulation limiting ability to seek a modification of family support is against public policy and cannot provide a basis for estoppel.
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)
Nonmodifiable floors on child support are enforceable as long as they are no longer than 33 months.
Evidence of substantial change in circumstances was overwhelming. Several factors would “probably have qualified for a substantial change in circumstances.”
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.
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.
Child support guidelines do not anticipate that the payee parent will make a dollar-for-dollar contribution to child support. The standards are based on the percentage of income and disposable assets that parents use to raise their children.
Having subsequent children does not give rise to modification of child support for first children as serial payor.
Military Separation benefit is gross income under HSS 80.
Trial court erred in finding percentage standards unfair due to inequality in available incomes.