DOCTOR’S VOLUNTARY RETURN TO A STATE TO FOSTER A MORE MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SON POTENTIALLY CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A MODIFICATION IN HIS CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY OBLIGATIONS
In a case with possible impact on Nevada family law, a Connecticut trial court improperly concluded that a doctor was not entitled to a modification of his alimony and child support obligations solely because his voluntary return to the state to foster a more meaningful relationship with his minor son constituted an “unacceptable reason” for his decreased personal income. In overruling that decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court distinguished between a voluntary relocation that resulted in an income change, and an inability to pay that is inexcusable and brought about through the “fault” of the payor. Olson v. Mohammadu, Supreme Court of Connecticut, No. 18963, December 10, 2013.
The divorced doctor at issue had relocated from Florida back to Connecticut to facilitate his relationship with his son, and had obtained new employment with a 17% reduction in salary. The doctor asserted that his reduction in income was a substantial change in circumstances that justified a downward modification in his alimony and child support obligations. A trial court denied the motion for modification, focusing on the voluntary nature of the income change.
In rejecting the notion that a voluntary relocation and resulting income change necessarily precluded the doctor from establishing a substantial change in financial circumstances, the Connecticut Supreme Court noted that such a change “must be excusable and not brought about by the defendant’s own fault…and [i]n order to make a determination on the threshold inquiry,…requires that the trial court ascertain whether the alleged substantial change in circumstances is the result of the moving party’s ‘own extravagance, neglect, misconduct, or other unacceptable reason.’ Olson, citing Sanchione v. Sanchione, 378 A.2d 522 (Ct. 1977). Therefore, the key issue to whether a substantial change of circumstances is met is not voluntariness per se, but culpability.
As in Connecticut, alimony and child support modifications in Nevada are established on a showing of changed circumstances, suggesting that the legal principles enunciated in Olson may have potential applicability in Las Vegas divorce proceedings on the same or similar facts.