KHALDY VS. KHALDY (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Per Curiam. The court reversed a child support award and remanded for an award conforming to the statutory guidelines, holding the district court improperly deviated on purely equitable grounds and effected an improper retroactive modification. After a de facto change of custody was formalized in Sharif's favor, the district court ordered the mother to pay only $200/month - despite NRS 125B.070(1)(b) yielding $395 - and suspended her obligation for one year because the father had not voluntarily increased his own payments as his income rose. The court reiterated that a district court deviating from the NRS 125B.070 formula must make specific findings of fact under NRS 125B.080(6) and may consider only the factors enumerated in NRS 125B.080(9) (Scott v. Scott, 107 Nev. 837, 822 P.2d 654 (1991)). Although equitable principles may inform a deviation, they are insufficient standing alone; a deviation must be based on one of the enumerated factors (see Westgate v. Westgate, 110 Nev. 1377, 887 P.2d 737 (1994); Lewis v. Hicks, 108 Nev. 1107, 1111, 843 P.2d 828, 831 (1992)). The district court's 'equitable' adjustment rested not on any statutory factor but on the father's arguable underpayment, and was therefore improper. The one-year suspension of the mother's obligation, imposed because the father did not voluntarily pay more than the decree required, was an improper retroactive modification of the prior support order. Under Day v. Day, 82 Nev. 317, 320-21, 417 P.2d 914, 916 (1966), and Ramacciotti v. Ramacciotti, 106 Nev. 529, 795 P.2d 988 (1990), accrued support payments become vested rights that cannot be modified or voided. The father had complied with a valid order; the mother's remedy for any underpayment was a motion to modify based on changed circumstances or the periodic statutory review (NRS 125B.145(1), (2)). Reversed and remanded for a guideline-conforming award.

In plain language

When Yvonne and Sharif Khaldy divorced, Yvonne got custody of their son Karim and Sharif paid $200 per month in child support, which he paid regularly. Later Yvonne voluntarily gave up custody, and Sharif went to court to formalize that he now had custody. The district court awarded Sharif custody and ordered Yvonne to pay child support - but only $200 per month, even though the statutory formula (18 percent of her income) called for $395. Worse, the court suspended Yvonne's support obligation entirely for one year, reasoning that Sharif should have voluntarily raised his own payments over the years as his income grew, and was being penalized for not doing so. Sharif appealed and the Supreme Court reversed. First, child support must be set according to the statutory guidelines. A court may deviate from the formula, but only if it makes specific findings tied to the factors listed in NRS 125B.080(9). Here the district court did not base its reduction on any of those statutory factors - it relied purely on 'equity' (giving Yvonne 'a break' because Sharif had arguably underpaid). The Court held that equitable principles alone are insufficient; equity may inform a deviation only when the deviation is actually based on one of the enumerated statutory factors. Second, suspending Yvonne's obligation for a year as a penalty against Sharif was an improper retroactive modification of the earlier support order. Nevada law is clear that once support payments accrue they become vested and cannot later be modified or wiped out. Sharif had faithfully paid the $200 the court ordered; if Yvonne thought he should pay more as his income rose, her remedy was to move to modify support based on changed circumstances or the periodic statutory review, not to have him penalized after the fact. The Court reversed the ruling on Yvonne's obligation and remanded for a support award that conforms to the statutory guidelines.