RENDERED: JANUARY 28, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1220-MR
TERESA K. WILLIAMS (FKA RUIZ
AND CAO) APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE M. BRENT HALL, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-00012
MICHAEL RUIZ; COMMONWEALTH
OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES;
AND HARDIN COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DIVISION OF
CHILD SUPPORT APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND JONES, JUDGES.
DIXON, JUDGE: Teresa K. Williams appeals the Hardin Circuit Court’s orders,
entered July 27, 2020, and September 18, 2020, retroactively reducing Michael
Ruiz’s child support obligation. After careful review of the record, briefs, and law,
we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Williams and Ruiz were previously married and have two minor
children. In January 2020, Ruiz registered with the Hardin Circuit Court a May 23,
2017, order setting his monthly child support obligation at $1,700. On January 22,
2020, citing a reduction in his income, Ruiz moved to modify his child support
obligation retroactively to August 2018. After a hearing, the court entered a
succinct order on July 27, 2020, reducing Ruiz’s support to $1,213.92 per month,
retroactive to February 1, 2020, and providing an offset of $135.02 per month for
18 months to allow Ruiz to recoup five months of overpayments.
Williams timely moved to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment and
for specific findings of fact, pursuant to CR1 59.05 and CR 52.02, respectively.
The court denied the motion to alter, amend, or vacate, but did set forth additional
findings of fact in its September 18, 2020, opinion and order. Therein, the court
found that the parties’ combined gross monthly income was $20,292.97, which the
court noted exceeds the maximum income provided by the Kentucky child support
1
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-
guidelines.2 The court “decline[d] to guess at an amount beyond the maximum
guideline child support amount[,]” and, accordingly, found that the total child
support obligation was $1,924.38, the maximum child support guidelines amount
required for two children, plus insurance. Taking into consideration Ruiz’s
proportion of the joint income, less an offset for his contribution to insurance, the
court determined that support should be modified to $1,213.92 per month. This
appeal timely followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Child support determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
McCarty v. Faried, 499 S.W.3d 266, 271 (Ky. 2016). A court abuses its discretion
if its decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999).
“‘[G]enerally, as long as the trial court gives due consideration to the parties’
financial circumstances and the child’s needs, and either conforms to the statutory
prescriptions or adequately justifies deviating therefrom, this Court will not disturb
its rulings.’” McCarty, 499 S.W.3d at 271 (quoting Van Meter v. Smith, 14 S.W.3d
569, 572 (Ky. App. 2000)).
2
Effective June 29, 2021, Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.212 was amended expanding
the child support guidelines to encompass parental income up to $30,000 monthly and adjusting
the obligation amounts. As this action preceded the amendment, we apply the prior version of
the statute, KRS 403.212 (2019), effective 6-27-19, which limited the child support guidelines to
monthly incomes of up to $15,000.
-3-
ANALYSIS
Williams’s first claim on appeal is that the court erred in modifying
Ruiz’s child support by inappropriately applying the guidelines where there was no
evidence or finding regarding the financial needs of the children.3 We agree that
the court abused its discretion; consequently, we need not reach Williams’s second
claim that the court erred in granting the motion retroactively.
Where the income of parents exceeds the Kentucky child support
guidelines, a court is required to use its discretion in setting support. KRS
403.212(5). As Williams notes, in Downing v. Downing, 45 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Ky.
App. 2001), this Court held that where the guidelines were not applicable, it was an
abdication of discretion for a court to merely apply a mechanical calculation in
setting support. Herein, despite finding that the parties’ income exceeded the
guidelines, the court refused to use its discretion in setting support and instead
deferred to the maximum amount permitted by the guidelines–a practice that was
soundly rejected by the court in Downing. Id. See also Dudgeon v. Dudgeon, 318
S.W.3d 106 (Ky. App. 2010), wherein this Court held that the child support
3
We note that to modify child support, the court must find that there has been a material change
in circumstances that is substantial and continuing. KRS 403.213(1). Herein, the court neither
cited this statute nor made such a finding; however, Williams has not raised this issue on appeal.
Accordingly, we will confine our review to the propriety of the court’s support calculation.
-4-
guidelines shall not be utilized to calculate child support where the parties’
combined income exceeds the guidelines.
Further, pivotal to setting support, especially where the guidelines are
inapplicable, the children’s reasonable needs must be considered by the court. See
McCarty and Downing. As the party seeking modification, Ruiz had the burden of
proof. Wilson v. Inglis, 554 S.W.3d 377 (Ky. App. 2018). Herein, no evidence
was presented regarding whether the needs of the children had decreased and, in
consequence, the court failed to provide the necessary supportive findings.
Accordingly, we must conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting
modification.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the orders
and judgments of the Hardin Circuit Court and REMAND this matter for the court
to enter an order denying, without prejudice, Ruiz’s motion to modify child
support for Ruiz’s failure to present sufficient evidence to support modification.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
MICHAEL RUIZ:
William D. Tingley
Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky Jeremy S. Aldridge
Elizabethtown, Kentucky
-5-