- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
WESLEY v. FOSTER
Factual and Procedural Background
In 1995, Cassandra Wesley and Anthony Foster had a child out of wedlock. Paternity was established shortly thereafter, and child support was set. On November 15, 2000, Wesley requested a statutory three-year review and modification of the child support obligation pursuant to NRS 125B.145(1)(b). A hearing was conducted where the hearing master calculated the child support obligation by determining each parent's gross monthly income, applying the Wright v. Osburn calculation for shared custody, and then applying the statutory presumptive maximum cap on support. Foster objected, arguing that the cap should be applied before the Wright calculation. The district court agreed with Foster, modified the support obligation accordingly, and Wesley appealed. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case to clarify the proper sequence of applying the Wright calculation and the statutory cap.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the statutory presumptive maximum child support amount under NRS 125B.070 should be applied before or after performing the Wright v. Osburn calculation for shared custodial arrangements.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Wesley contended that in shared custody arrangements, the statutory presumptive maximum cap on child support should be applied after performing the Wright calculation.
Respondent's Arguments
- Foster argued that the cap should be applied before the Wright calculation, asserting that the hearing master's recommendation was clearly erroneous.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Wright v. Osburn, 114 Nev. 1367, 970 P.2d 1071 (1998) | Established the formula for calculating child support obligations in shared custody situations by calculating each parent's percentage of gross income, subtracting the lower obligation from the higher, and requiring the higher income parent to pay the difference. | The court clarified that the Wright calculation must be performed before applying the statutory presumptive maximum cap on child support obligations. |
| Garrett v. Garrett, 111 Nev. 972, 899 P.2d 1112 (1995) | Supports the philosophy that child support statutes aim to ensure adequate monthly support for children. | The court cited this case to reinforce the rationale behind applying the Wright offset prior to the cap to maintain adequate child support. |
| Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 779 P.2d 532 (1989) | Addresses the fixed nature of child-care expenses and the increased total child-related expenses in joint custody situations. | The court referenced this precedent to highlight that shared custody does not significantly reduce child-care expenses, supporting the need for the Wright calculation before capping support. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the statutory framework under NRS 125B.020(1) and NRS 125B.070(1)(b), which impose a duty on parents to support their children and provide a presumptive maximum child support amount. The Wright formula requires calculating each parent's percentage of gross income and offsetting the lower from the higher amount to determine the support obligation in shared custody arrangements.
The court noted that Wright did not explicitly address when to apply the statutory cap. The court reasoned that applying the Wright offset before the cap aligns with the legislative intent to ensure adequate child support payments, as fixed child-care expenses remain largely unchanged in shared custody scenarios. Applying the cap before the offset could improperly reduce support obligations and undermine this intent.
In the instant case, the hearing master applied the cap before the offset, but the district court modified this approach in favor of Foster's argument. The Supreme Court held that this was erroneous and that the offset must precede the application of the cap, allowing the cap to limit the final obligation only after the offset is calculated. The court also acknowledged the district court’s discretion to adjust support amounts for special circumstances.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed and remanded the district court’s order.
The court held that in shared custodial arrangements, the Wright offset calculation must be performed prior to applying the statutory presumptive maximum child support cap. The district court erred by applying the cap first. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this clarified legal standard.
This decision directly affects the calculation of child support obligations in shared custody cases in Nevada by establishing the proper sequence for applying the Wright formula and statutory caps. The opinion does not create new precedent beyond clarifying the sequence of calculations but reinforces the principle of ensuring adequate support for children.
Reversed and remanded.
Per Curiam:
In this appeal, we examine whether the statutory presumptive maximum for child support, as provided in NRS 125B.070, should be applied to the support obligation before, or after, application of the calculation set forth in Wright v. Osburn for shared custodial arrangements. We conclude that the Wright calculation should be performed before application of the presumptive maximum support obligation.
The version of NRS 125B.070 that applies in this opinion is the statute in effect through June 30, 2002, providing a presumptive maximum of $500 per month per child. The new version of the statute, effective July 1, 2002, provides a different presumptive maximum amount to each income range, ranging from a presumptive maximum amount of $500 to $800. The new statute also requires that the income range and maximum amounts be adjusted on July 1 of each year based upon the increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index.
114 Nev. 1367, 970 P.2d 1071 (1998).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1995, Cassandra Wesley and Anthony Foster had a child out of wedlock. Shortly thereafter, paternity was established and child support was set.
On November 15, 2000, Wesley requested a three-year review and modification of child support, pursuant to NRS 125B.145(1)(b); a hearing was conducted. Foster's gross monthly income was determined to be $5,417. Wesley's gross monthly income was determined to be $1,417. The hearing master calculated the appropriate percentage of each parent's income, subtracted Wesley's obligation from Foster's, pursuant to Wright, and then applied the statutory presumptive maximum (the cap), as provided by NRS 125B.070(1)(b).
Shortly thereafter, Foster filed an objection to the hearing master's recommendation and order, arguing that the child support court's decision was clearly erroneous because the cap should have been applied before performing the Wright calculation. Following a hearing, the district court agreed with Foster's approach and reset his support obligation.
Wesley appealed the district court's ruling, contending that in shared custody arrangements, the cap should be applied after the Wright calculations. We now take this opportunity to clarify our ruling in Wright.
DISCUSSIONNRS 125B.020(1) provides that parents have a duty to support their children. NRS 125B.070(1)(b) provides a formula for calculating child support based on a percentage "of a parent's gross monthly income, but not more than $500 per month per child . . . unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080." These two statutes, taken together, set forth an objective standard for establishing child support.
In Wright, this court established a formula for determining which parent receives child support and the amount of support in situations where custody is shared equally. The district court must "[c]alculate the appropriate percentage of gross income for each parent; subtract the difference between the two and require the parent with the higher income to pay the parent with the lower income that difference." In Wight, we did not specifically address the question of when application of the statutory presumptive maximum should occur.
Id. at 1368-69, 970 P.2d at 1072.
Id. at 1369, 970 P.2d at 1072.
See id. In Wright, we applied the applicable percentage to each parent's gross income and subtracted the lower obligation from the higher obligation. The father's obligation was $1 over the presumptive maximum before subtracting the mother's obligation.
The Wright offset should take place before, not after, application of the cap. This conclusion supports "the general philosophy of NRS 125B.070, which is to make sure adequate monthly support is paid to our children."
Garrett v. Garrett, 111 Nev. 972, 976, 899 P.2d 1112, 1115 (1995) (ROSE, J., dissenting).
As we have previously stated, the fixed child-care expenses incurred by each parent are usually not appreciably diminished as a result of shared custody. "The sad reality that must be faced is that the desirable sharing of custody responsibilities by [another] custodian in joint custody situations has the inevitable result of increasing total child-related expenses." Nonetheless, we must still attempt to maintain the comparable lifestyle of the child between the parents' households.
Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 549, 779 P.2d 532, 535 (1989).
id.
In this case, there is a disparity in the gross monthly income of the two parents. Consistent with our holding in Wright, Wesley's percentage of gross monthly income should first be subtracted from Foster's percentage of gross monthly income. Then, after this offset is made, the cap should be applied. "Of course, the district court also has the option to adjust the amount of the award where special circumstances exist."
18% of $1,417.00 = $255.06. 18% of $5,417.00 = $975.06. Applying the offset, $975.06 minus $255.06 = $720.00, Foster's child support obligation prior to application of the cap.
The version of NRS 125B.070 in effect at the time of the petition for modification provided a $500 cap. Therefore, Foster's obligation for support payments to Wesley is $500 per month.
Wright, 114 Nev. at 1369, 970 P.2d at 1072 (citing NRS 125B.080(9)).
CONCLUSIONWe hold that in shared custodial arrangements, the Wright offset should be applied prior to application of the statutory cap. The district court erred by applying the cap prior to performing the offset. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Alert