Ciampa v. Ciampa
2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 128, 2013 WL 4247075, 415 S.W.3d 97 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When parents' combined gross income exceeds the uppermost level of the statutory child support guidelines, a family court may exercise its discretion to deviate from the guidelines. Such a deviation is not an abuse of discretion if it is supported by specific written findings that the amount is based primarily on the child's reasonable needs and consistent with the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved.
Facts:
- Peter R. Ciampa and Cynthia L. Ciampa (Cindy) were married in 1988 and had three daughters.
- Following their separation, a 2008 settlement agreement incorporated Peter's agreement to pay $6,000 per month in child support for their three daughters.
- Peter is a self-employed oral surgeon with a total annual income of $817,673, while Cindy does not work outside the home and has a total annual income of $52,404.
- The parties' combined annual income of over $870,000 substantially exceeds the $180,000 uppermost level of the Kentucky child support guideline table.
- In 2010, after the oldest daughter turned 18, the family court ordered that Peter's monthly child support for the remaining two minor children remain at $6,000.
- In 2012, as the second daughter approached her 18th birthday, Peter sought a modification of child support for the one remaining minor child.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Ciampa filed a motion in McCracken Family Court to modify his child support obligation for his one remaining minor child.
- On October 17, 2012, the family court entered an order modifying child support, reducing the monthly payment from $6,000 to $5,800.
- Peter filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order, or alternatively, for more specific findings.
- On December 17, 2012, the family court issued additional findings but denied Peter's motion to reduce the child support amount further.
- Peter Ciampa, as appellant, appealed the family court's order to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a family court abuse its discretion by setting a child support amount significantly above the statutory guidelines for a high-income parent, when the amount is based on specific, written findings detailing the child's reasonable needs and accustomed standard of living?
Opinions:
Majority - Clayton, Judge
No. The family court did not abuse its discretion by setting child support outside the statutory guidelines because its decision was supported by extensive written findings justifying the deviation. When parental income exceeds the guideline's uppermost level, Kentucky law (KRS 403.212(5)) grants the family court judicial discretion to determine the appropriate support amount. Citing Downing v. Downing, the court affirmed that any amount set above the guidelines must be based primarily on the child's reasonable needs, not on a mere mathematical extrapolation. Here, the family court thoroughly documented the child's needs, which it calculated at $6,617 per month, and even disallowed certain expenses it deemed unreasonable. Because the court’s decision was based on the child's expenses and the parents' significant resources, and was not arbitrary or unfair, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion.
Concurring - Maze, Judge
No. The family court's decision should be affirmed, although the analysis should also consider the contractual nature of the parties' original agreement. Peter initially agreed to pay $6,000 per month, an amount he knew was above the guidelines, creating an enforceable contract. While the emancipation of two children necessitated a modification, the family court properly based its new order on the remaining child's reasonable needs. Although the resulting support amount seems high, the family court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, consistent with the standard of living established for the child, and therefore did not constitute an abuse of discretion under the Downing standard.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant discretion afforded to family courts in high-income child support cases under Kentucky law. It solidifies the precedent from Downing v. Downing, emphasizing that a court's deviation from statutory guidelines is defensible on appeal so long as it is meticulously justified with written findings grounded in the child's specific, reasonable needs and accustomed lifestyle. The decision signals to high-income litigants that the focus will be on maintaining the child's standard of living, and an order will be upheld if the trial court creates a thorough record to support its calculations. This approach prioritizes a needs-based analysis over a rigid, formulaic one when substantial parental income is involved.
