Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                       DIVISION  II

In re the Marriage of                                            No.  41352-3-II

ELIZHALEE KEAKEALANI HAGER,

                             Respondent,

       v.

ERIC ARTHUR HAGER,                                         UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                             Appellant.

       Johanson, J.  --  Eric Hager appeals the denial of his motion to modify his child support 

payments.  Eric1 argues that the trial court abused its discretion.  Because the record provided by 

Eric does not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm.

                                            FACTS

       In April 2008, Pierce County Superior Court entered a child support order for Eric and 

Elizhalee Hager.  It set Eric's child support for their two children at $558 per month.  Eric, the 

noncustodial parent, filed a petition for modification in May 2010 based on his economic 

hardship.   He also sought a deviation from the child support schedule based on substantial 

residential time.

       In August 2010, a superior court commissioner found "no factual basis for modification"

and denied Eric's petition.  Clerk's Papers at 35.  Eric moved for revision.  

1 For clarity, we refer to the parties by their first names.  We intend no disrespect. 

No.  41352-3-II

       The trial court considered Eric's motion for revision where he stated that his income was 

$133 per week in unemployment.  Elizhalee indicated that she and her new husband earn between 

$3,000 and $6,000 per month in gross income.  Initially the court observed that there was "a 

substantial change in financial circumstances" since the adoption of the April 2008 child support 

order.  Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 12.  But, the documentation also demonstrated 

that Eric owed a substantial amount of back child support, and the trial court determined that Eric 

had not made a good faith effort to find work and pay his child support in two years.  As a result

the trial court denied his motion for revision, and Eric timely appealed.

                                          ANALYSIS

       Eric argues that the trial court erred by not issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law

and that it abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify child support.  He prevails on 

neither of these claims.

                                    A.  Standard of Review

       RCW 26.09.175 governs the modification of an order of child support.  The party seeking 

the modification bears the burden of proof.  In re Marriage of Bucklin, 70 Wn. App. 837, 839, 

855 P.2d 1197 (1993).  On a motion for revision where evidence before the commissioner does 

not include live testimony, the superior court reviews a court commissioner's findings de novo.  

In re Marriage of Moody, 137 Wn.2d 979, 993, 976 P.2d 1240 (1999).  And, once the superior 

court rules on the revision motion, the appeal is from the superior court's decision, not the 

commissioner's.  In re Custody of Osborne, 119 Wn. App. 133, 140 n.2, 79 P.3d 465 (2003) 

(citing State v. Hoffman, 115 Wn. App. 91, 101, 60 P.3d 1261, rev'd on other grounds, 150 

                                               2 

No.  41352-3-II

Wn.2d 536, 78 P.3d 1289 (2003)).

       The trial court's discretion in modifying a child support order is broad.  In re Marriage of 

Dodd, 120 Wn. App. 638, 644, 86 P.3d 801 (2004).          We will not reverse the trial court's 

determination of whether a change in circumstances warrants modifying child support absent a 

manifest abuse of discretion.  In re Marriage of McCausland, 159 Wn.2d 607, 616, 152 P.3d 

1013 (2007).  When a party fails to provide credible evidence of actual income, the trial court may 

determine income by any rational means based upon evidence in the record.  See In re Marriage 

of Sievers, 78 Wn. App. 287, 305-06, 897 P.2d 388 (1995).

       An appellant must provide "argument in support of the issues presented for review, 

together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the record." RAP 

10.3(a)(6).  This court need not consider arguments not supported by any citation of authority. 

Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).  

       Under RCW 26.19.035(2), "[a]n order for child support shall be supported by written 

findings of fact upon which the support determination is based."    This requirement applies in 

support modification proceedings.  See In re Marriage of Wayt, 63 Wn. App. 510, 512 -- 13, 820 

P.2d 519 (1991).

                                          B.  Analysis

       Here, Eric requested a downward modification and a deviation of child support due to

substantial residential time and a decrease in his income. He claimed that the trial court not only 

erred in denying his request, but also in not issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law relating 

to its decision.  

                                               3 

No.  41352-3-II

       But, Eric has failed to provide legal authority supporting his contention that a trial court 

must issue signed findings of fact and conclusions of law       when   denying   a modification.  

Therefore, we do not consider his arguments on this issue.  RAP 10.3(a)(6); DeHeer v. Seattle 

Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962) ("Where no authorities are cited in 

support of a proposition, the court is not required to search out authorities, but may assume that 

counsel, after diligent search, has found none.").

       He also claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to revise 

the commissioner's order denying his motion for modification of child support because it made a 

factual finding that the parties had experienced a change in circumstances and income.  However, 

the trial court also found that Eric had not made a good faith effort to find work and pay his child 

support in two years. Thus, the record provided does not demonstrate that the trial court abused 

its discretion in denying Eric's motion for revision.  See McCausland, 159 Wn.2d at 616.

       We affirm.

       A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it 

is so ordered.

                                                                   Johanson, J.
We concur:

                Armstrong, J.

                                               4 

No.  41352-3-II

                  Penoyar, C.J.

                                               5