Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleCourt: Man should get chance at lowered child support
Monday, Feb. 8, 2010 | 2:06 p.m.
CARSON CITY – A man who once earned between $500,000 and $4 million a year in the stock market should have a chance to get his child support payments reduced now that the economy has soured and his earnings have declined, a court has ruled.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that Anthony Fernandez should be given a hearing in district court in Las Vegas in his effort to modify his child support payments, which were an annual $80,000 a year in his high-earning years.
Fernandez and his former wife, Jennifer Rothman, had two children before their divorce. They agreed that neither would seek a modification of the child support agreement.
But when the stock market tanked, Fernandez ended up earning $3,000 a month selling cars.
His ex-wife’s financial condition has improved with her gross monthly income either equaling or outmatching his, Fernandez argues.
District Court Judge Cheryl Moss denied the petition of the father to modify the support payments. The Supreme Court said it doesn't make any finding that the support payments should be reduced -- only that Fernandez should have another hearing on whether the support should be lowered.
Justice Kristina Pickering wrote in the unanimous opinion of the court panel, “Although parents often stipulate to an appropriate child support order, even agreed-upon child support orders must be calculated and reviewed…”
“The child’s best interest is not served by perpetuating a support order that the obligor parent’s changed circumstances may make unreasonable,’’ Pickering said.
The father remarried and is either divorced or separated and has a new child to support. The mother has also remarried and has a stepson to support. But her income equals that of the father, taking into account the earning of her new husband.
In his banner years as a day trader in the late 1990, Fernandez earned an annual $500,000 up to $4 million in 2001. He then started to lose heavily in the market and by 2007 he was selling cars and petitioning that his child support be modified.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Superstar Whitney Houston dies at 48
- Two dead after accident in downtown Las Vegas
- Instant Analysis: Debating whether UNLV should continue series with San Diego State
- Dining Guide: 2012 Valentine’s Day options in Las Vegas
- Color from the scene at Thomas & Mack Center: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- Four people injured in car accident
- Blog: Justin Hawkins’ steal seals UNLV’s thrilling 65-63 victory against San Diego State
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Modification or no modification, he obviously isn't going to pay $80k a year if he only makes $36k a year, assuming that his saving are negligible like most Americans.
My savings would be higher if the government didn't take up to 12% of my paycheck for a failing social security system.
I'll bet he's no longer making $3k/month selling cars.
The question here is why did he have to go all the way to the Supremes to get this decision. And what were his attorney fees and costs for doing it -- all $$ that should be benefiting the family, not the state Bar members.
One can review the decision at http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/...
Having a father to pay child support based on his income is ridiculous! What child needs $80K a year in support? The system needs to revised to reflect the true cost of providing basic necessities for a child. The father should have an option to purchase the necessities himself rather than just writing a check!
It is no wonder that a divorce judge was shot in Reno. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.
And P. Gibbons, no one cares about your savings or that you have to pay taxes like the rest of us.
The whole system needs an overhaul, I have a case with the DA's office, been told that they could find my ex husband and get the child support from him, I have not received any payments in the past 2 1/2 years, and my case is only 600.00 per month. They sent me a letter last month asking if I want the case closed, HELL NO, my child is suffering every month without this money.
KillerB: Yet another reason NV so badly needs an intermediate court of appeal. If one existed, the Nevada Supremes could concentrate on what should be their main job--death penalty direct appeals, first impression cases and matters which impact large numbers of Nevadans.
flapsychdoc -- agreed, but the reason should be something must be left over for the child to inherit. The Child Support Collection Machine is the ultimate transfer of wealth, and it wants it ALL. That's why guys working in California McDonalds get hit to pay more than they actually make.
Superbad -- yeah, it needs overhauling, but are you going to do it? I tried that in another state. Everyone's enthusiastic until you hit them for a commitment of money and time. Then it's the Little Red Hen story all over again. Start with the premise of why people who have committed no crime or tort get summoned into the highly technical environment of a courtroom then expected to go by their rules.
classybear -- how often does he get to see his kid? Is he employed or even unemployable? How does that monthly amount fit with the income he had at the time of the order? Was he even invited to the hearing that produced that order? So many questions, so little justice.
LVLawyerGal -- this is the kind of case that should never see a courtroom. States like Washington handle cases like this administratively -- quick, simple, informal.
Of course this is one of those like a waning celebrity who has gone from megabucks to just getting by like the rest of us. A stipulated agreement is a contract crafted by attorneys, approved by the parties and endosed by a court, which a state administrative should not be able to deal with. A technicality which serves no one.
"It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world ... It is the same spirit that says, 'You toil and earn the bread, and I'll eat it.'" -- Abraham Lincoln, from Reply, Seventh and Last Joint Debate with Judge Douglas, 1858.
killerb----he signed the divorce papers agreeing to that amount, which was the correct amount with his income, even his current income. He would see his kid if I knew where he lived, moved to calif, to texas, to washington, to virginia, to south carolina... Who knows where he lives now. He wont even send in a couple of hundred dollars a month, Total dead beat dad whom should be in jail. My son is now 16 and doesn't want anything to do with his father with the way he has been treated since our divorce over 4 years ago.
All you ever hear about is the fathers that do not pay, but what about the millions that do. The fathers that see their children every other weekend and pay. Year after year, month after month. I guess their is someone somewhere that has crap to say about them too. How about a father that has paid 10K a year and only makes 55K a year before taxes. Loses a job that he has had for 19 years due to the economy. Doesn't cry about or say wow is me. Finds a job the very next day, as a car salesman. Income reduces another 10K a year. Now maybe I don't know exactly how the great system we have in place works, but it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out this mans support should be reduced. The flip side is that the mother has has hard times as well. She has had a reduction in income as well, but how is it that a man paying $808 a month can be thrown back in court and his support raised to $1,071.00 Yes our system is broke, but no one seems to want to fix it because it doesn't effect them. If you think that this is just bogist story go to any courtroom. That or come to Jefferson Co. in Alabama and watch me have to deal with just this issue on April the 31st.