Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes a substantial change warranting child support modification in Utah? Nave-Free v. Free Explained
Summary
After divorcing in 2013, husband petitioned to modify child support in 2014, claiming substantial changes in circumstances when wife remarried, began receiving rental income, and children’s out-of-pocket medical expenses decreased. The trial court denied the petition, finding no material changes in wife’s income, relative wealth, or the children’s medical needs.
Analysis
In Nave-Free v. Free, the Utah Court of Appeals examined what constitutes a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of child support, particularly when dealing with medical needs versus medical expenses.
Background and Facts
After 25 years of marriage, the parties divorced in 2013 with an agreed upward deviation in child support of approximately $4,558 per month based on the ongoing medical needs of two children. The wife was awarded a house in Heber City, and the monthly support amount was set at $7,629, decreasing as children reached majority. In 2014, the husband petitioned to modify support, claiming the wife’s income had substantially increased due to rental income from the awarded house and her remarriage, creating a two-income household. He also argued that the children’s out-of-pocket medical expenses had decreased.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three primary issues: whether the wife experienced a substantial change in income, whether her relative wealth materially changed through remarriage, and whether changes in the children’s medical circumstances warranted modification. Under Utah Code § 78B-12-210(9)(b), modifications require material changes of 30% or more in parental income, changes in relative wealth or assets, or material changes in medical needs.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court found the husband failed to meet his burden on all three grounds. Regarding income, while the husband claimed a 40% increase by adding rental income to the wife’s divorce-time earnings, her actual income at modification was only $3,000 monthly (reduced from $4,084 at divorce). Even with $1,750 monthly rental income, this represented only a 16% increase—below the 30% threshold. The court also distinguished between medical needs and medical expenses, noting that reduced out-of-pocket costs don’t necessarily indicate changed underlying medical conditions. The husband admitted the children’s serious medical conditions remained unchanged since divorce.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that practitioners seeking child support modifications must carefully calculate percentage changes in actual current income, not theoretical projections. The court’s distinction between medical needs and expenses is particularly significant—modifications require changes in underlying medical conditions, not merely variations in payment methods or insurance coverage. The case also demonstrates the importance of thorough factual development when claiming substantial changes in circumstances.
Case Details
Case Name
Nave-Free v. Free
Citation
2019 UT App 83
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170751-CA
Date Decided
May 16, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A former husband failed to demonstrate substantial material changes in circumstances warranting modification of child support when his former wife’s income increase was only 16% (below the required 30%), her relative wealth remained roughly the same, and the children’s medical needs (as distinct from medical expenses) had not changed.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s determination to modify or not modify a divorce decree; correctness for challenges to legal adequacy of findings of fact or legal accuracy of court’s statements; abuse of discretion for determination regarding whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred (presumptively valid)
Practice Tip
When seeking child support modification based on medical circumstances, focus on changes to underlying medical conditions (needs) rather than just changes in out-of-pocket expenses, as courts distinguish between the two concepts.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.