Voishan v. Palma
609 A.2d 319, 327 Md. 318, 1992 Md. LEXIS 125 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Maryland, when combined parental income exceeds the highest level of the child support guidelines, trial courts have discretion to set support. However, this discretion is guided by the Income Shares Model, requiring consideration of the child's needs in relation to parental resources and establishing the guideline schedule's maximum as a rebuttable presumptive minimum.
Facts:
- John and Margaret Voishan were divorced on June 26, 1981, with Margaret receiving custody of their two daughters.
- John was initially ordered to pay $250 per week for the girls' support.
- On October 7, 1985, John's child support obligation for both children was increased to $1400 per month, and he was awarded certain detailed visitation rights.
- By March 8, 1991, only one daughter was still a minor.
- At that time, John earned $145,000 per year, and Margaret earned $30,000 per year, resulting in a combined annual income of $175,000.
- The trial judge determined the reasonable expenses of the minor child to be $1873 per month.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Margaret Voishan were divorced on June 26, 1981, by decree of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (trial court).
- On October 7, 1985, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (trial court) increased John's child support obligation and awarded him visitation rights.
- On March 8, 1991, John requested the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (trial court) to find Margaret in contempt for violating the visitation order, and Margaret filed a motion to modify child support.
- The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (trial court), presided over by Judge Raymond G. Thieme, Jr., entered an order finding Margaret not in contempt and increasing John’s child support obligation for the one daughter who was still a minor.
- John appealed the modification of child support to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland (highest court) granted certiorari, taking the case before the intermediate appellate court considered it.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by calculating child support based on the child's reasonable expenses and parents' proportional incomes, rather than a strict extrapolation or cap from the statutory guidelines, when the parents' combined adjusted actual income exceeds the highest level in the child support schedule?
Opinions:
Majority - Chasanow, J.
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion when, in cases where combined parental income exceeds the statutory guidelines, it determines child support by examining the child's reasonable needs and apportioning those expenses based on the parents' proportional incomes, rather than by strictly capping the support at the guidelines' maximum or mechanically extrapolating. The Maryland General Assembly adopted child support guidelines based on the Income Shares Model to ensure a child maintains a similar standard of living as if the parents remained together. While the schedule for basic child support obligations caps at $10,000 monthly combined income, § 12-204(d) grants trial judges discretion for incomes above this level. The Court rejected John's arguments that the support should be capped at the schedule's maximum ($1040/month for one child) or determined by strict mechanical extrapolation, reasoning that such approaches defeat the guidelines' policy of maintaining the child's standard of living and go against the legislature's intent to grant judicial discretion in high-income cases. However, this discretion is not unguided; judges must consider the guidelines' underlying principles, balance the child's best interests and needs with the parents' financial ability, and factors like financial circumstances, station in life, and educational expenses (citing Unkle v. Unkle). The maximum support award under the schedule serves as a rebuttable presumptive minimum for cases above the schedule. The trial judge properly exercised discretion by receiving evidence of the parents' financial circumstances, considering the needs of the child, and then apportioning the 'reasonable expenses of the child' proportionally based on each parent's adjusted actual income, consistent with the Income Shares Model and Rand v. Rand.
Concurring - McAuliffe, J., joined by Eldridge, J.
Concurring in the result, the trial court's award falls within a permissible range of discretion, but the method used was at variance with the legislature's intended application of the Income Shares Model. The legislature adopted the Income Shares Model to ensure consistency and equity in child support awards, basing calculations on economic studies of expenditures on children as a proportion of household consumption. The concurring judge believes that while discretion is granted for high-income cases, it should not authorize virtually unlimited discretion or ignore the model's underlying data. Instead of determining needs based on the custodial parent's estimated allocation of fixed expenses, the judge suggests the schedule provides informed guidance by establishing presumptive maximum and minimum amounts. Specifically, the maximum scheduled payment ($1040/month for one child) should serve as the presumptive minimum, and 10.4% of the combined income (the percentage for one child at the schedule's top income) should serve as the presumptive maximum base payment. Applying these principles to John's case, the ordered $1550 payment falls within the calculated presumptive range (minimum $1040, maximum $1591, including child care), thus justifying affirmance of the decision.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Maryland's child support guidelines for high-income parents whose combined income exceeds the statutory schedule. It establishes that judicial discretion in such cases, while broad, is not unfettered and must be guided by the Income Shares Model's principles, focusing on maintaining the child's standard of living consistent with an intact high-income household. The ruling provides a framework for courts to determine support by establishing the schedule's maximum as a rebuttable presumptive minimum and considering the child's individualized needs in light of the parents' robust financial resources. This approach ensures high-income children do not suffer an undue reduction in their standard of living simply because their parents' income surpasses the statutory calculation table.
