ISSUE II ANALYSIS

The rule of law governing the modification of child support obligations is

New Mexico Statutes Annotated NMSA § 40-4-11.4, which provides: "A court may

modify a child support obligation upon a showing of material and substantial changes

in circumstances subsequent to the adjudication of the pre-existing order."

The Supreme Court of New Mexico addressed child support modification in Britton v.

Britton, 100 N.M. 424 (1983). In Britton, the Supreme Court declared: "Modification

of support obligations is strictly a matter to be determined by the courts." Id. at 430.

The obligor parent cannot unilaterally alter child support obligations. Id. at 430.

Wolcott v. Wolcott, 105 N.M. 608 (1987) is a New Mexico Court of Appeals case with

analogous facts and rules applicable to Mr. Arturo Garcia's case. In Wolcott,

Dr. Stephen Wolcott, the father and former husband, was a physician in New Mexico,

who closed his medical practice and voluntarily made a career change resulting in

reduced income. Dr. Wolcott unilaterally reduced his child support payments,

contrary to the terms of the marital settlement agreement and without judicial

approval.

The Wolcott fact pattern matches the narrative of Dr. Mary Chavez. Thus, the rules,

reasoning, and findings of the court are applicable to our client's case. The Wolcott

court emphasized that the recipient's actual need for support is the essential criterion.

The focal point is the children's actual need for support. The obligor parent has the

burden of proving to the trial court's satisfaction that circumstances had substantially

changed and, thereby, justifying his request for the modification. To justify

modification in child support, there must be evidence of a substantial change of

circumstances. A good faith career change, resulting in a decreased income, may

constitute a material change in circumstances that warrants a reduction in a spouse's

support obligations. This change does not automatically mandate a reduction in his

support obligation. Where the career change is not made in good faith, a reduction in

one's support obligations will not be warranted.

In Wolcott, the trial court found that the husband was not acting in good faith when he

voluntarily made his career change. Dr. Wolcott unilaterally reduced his monthly

child support and alimony payment, contrary to the terms of the marital settlement

agreement and without judicial approval or forewarning his former spouse. The court

took this disregard for financial obligations as a lack of good faith.

In Wolcott, good faith was the pivot with Dr. Wolcott and will likely be the pivotal

point with Dr. Mary Chavez. Like Dr. Wolcott, Dr. Mary Chavez is a physician in

New Mexico, who closed her medical practice and voluntarily made a career change

resulting in reduced income. Then Dr. Chavez unilaterally reduced her child support

payments, contrary to the terms of the marital settlement agreement and without

judicial approval. Following Wolcott, the court will likely take Dr. Chavez's disregard

for financial obligations as a lack of good faith. Furthermore, Dr. Chavez told several

individuals that she quit her practice because she "can't stand to play that much money

to my ex-husband." These comments, if proved in court, would demonstrate

Dr. Chavez's bad faith. Applying Wolcott, the court will likely deny a reduction in

child support obligations.

As a counterargument, Dr. Mary Chavez may assert, "That's all I can afford to pay

now that I'm going to school." This however has not been a concern of the courts.

This was not a concern of the Supreme Court of New Mexico in Britton. This was not

a concern of the courts in Wolcott when looking at the analogous case of Dr. Wolcott.

The concern of the court is the children. The children's actual need for support is the

essential criterion. The parent's duty to support the children persists – enforced with

the full authority of the State.

Conclusion:

The rule of law governing the modification of child support obligations is NMSA

§ 40-4-11.4, which provides that a court may modify a child support obligation upon a

showing of material and substantial changes in circumstances. In Britton, the

Supreme Court of New Mexico declared that the obligor parent cannot unilaterally

alter child support obligations. The Wolcott court emphasized that the recipient's

actual need for support is the essential criterion. The obligor parent has the burden of

proving to the trial court's satisfaction that circumstances had substantially changed.

Where the career change is not made in good faith, a reduction in one's support

obligations will not be warranted. When applying statutory and case law to

Dr. Mary Chavez, the court will likely deny a modification of child support.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 ISSUE I ANALYSIS

New Mexico Statutes Annotated NMSA § 40-4-7(G), which provides: "The court may

modify and change any order in respect to . . . the care, custody, maintenance . . . of

the children whenever circumstances render such change proper. The district court

shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to the . . . care, custody,

maintenance . . . of the children so long as the children remain minors."

 In Britton, the Supreme Court declared: "Modification of support obligations is strictly a matter to be

determined by the courts." Id. at 430. The obligor parent cannot unilaterally alter

child support obligations. Id. at 430. The Supreme Court articulated the wellestablished

general rule that "an undivided support award directed at more than one

child is presumed to continue in force for the full amount until the youngest child

reaches majority." Id. at 426.

In Mr. Arturo Garcia's case, just as in Britton, there was an undivided child support

award what was unilaterally modified without a court order by the obligor parent

(Mary Chavez) when the oldest child turned eighteen years old. If the trial court

follows the rule of law presented in Britton, Mary Chavez's unilateral reduction in

child support payments will be found to be impermissible.

No counterargument can be made because the statute and case law are clear on this

matter.

Conclusion:

NMSA § 40-4-7 grants exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to child support

to the courts. In Britton, the New Mexico Supreme Court prohibits unilateral

modifications by a parent without a court order. Furthermore, an undivided support

award continues for the full amount until the youngest child reaches age eighteen.

Therefore, Mary Chavez is obligated to continue the full amount of the undivided

child support payments until all her children reach age eighteen. Her unilateral

reduction in child support payments will likely found to be impermissible by the

court.

 ISSUES

Issue I

Under NMSA § 40-4-7, was it permissible for Mary Chavez to reduce support unilaterally

when the oldest child reached the age of majority?

Issue II

Under NMSA § 40-4-11.4, what is the likelihood of the court granting a modification of

child support as a result of Mary Chavez's change of occupation?

 _________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Write the relevant or applicable rules or tests from the Britton and Wolcott cases. State each rule or

test in one or two sentences only. Number them as Britton Rule 1, Britton Rule 2, Wolcott Rule 1, etc.

________________________________

Britton v. Britton, 100 N.M. 424 (1983)

Britton Rule 1

Modification of support obligations is strictly a matter to be determined by the courts.

Britton Rule 2

The obligor parent cannot unilaterally alter child support obligations.

Britton Rule 3

The general rule is that an undivided support award directed at more than one child is presumed

to continue in force for the full amount until the youngest child reaches majority.

Britton Rule 4

Each monthly child support installment mandated in the final decree is a final judgment,

not subject to retroactive modification. Therefore, the statute of limitations period applies.

________________________________

Wolcott v. Wolcott, 105 N.M. 608 (1987)

Wolcott Rule 1

The decision as to reducing or maintaining the support obligation rests within the trial court's

discretion.

Wolcott Rule 2

To justify modification in child support and alimony, there must be evidence of a substantial

change of circumstances.

Wolcott Rule 3

The recipient's actual need for support is the essential criterion.

Wolcott Rule 4

A good faith career change, resulting in a decreased income, may constitute a

material change in circumstances that warrants a reduction in a spouse's support obligations.

This change does not automatically mandate a reduction in his support obligation.

Wolcott Rule 5

Where the career change is not made in good faith, a reduction in one's support obligations will

not be warranted.

____________________________________________________________________________

 https://www.dropbox.com/s/xkac9z02v6ln5vm/Exercise%20Oct19.doc?dl=0