James Palmer v. Shamekia McCray

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
James Palmer, Appellant,
v.
Shamekia McCray, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2016-002449
Appeal From Williamsburg County
Gordon B. Jenkinson, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-408
Submitted September 1, 2018 – Filed November 7, 2018
REVERSED AND REMANDED
James Palmer, of Hemingway, pro se.
Shamekia McCray, of Hemingway, pro se.
PER CURIAM: James Palmer, pro se, appeals the family court's final order
modifying his monthly child support obligation. On appeal, Palmer argues the
family court erred in (1) calculating his monthly child support obligation and (2)
calculating the amount he owed in arrearages. We reverse and remand.
As to Palmer's monthly child support obligation, the family court found Palmer
earned a gross monthly income of $1,733, and Shamekia McCray, the children's
mother, earned a gross monthly income of $1,800. The family court then found
Palmer and McCray should have contributed $599 per month in support of the
child remaining in McCray's custody. In its written order, the family court reduced
Palmer's support obligation from $170 weekly to $160.89 bi-weekly. However,
regulation section 114-4720(A)(14)(A) requires the total monthly support
obligation to be divided between the parents based on their proportional share of
their combined gross monthly income. S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
§ 114-4720(A)(14)(A) (Supp. 2017). Palmer's proportional share of the combined
gross monthly income was 49%.1 Given the family court's finding that both
parents should jointly contribute a monthly total of $599, Palmer's monthly
obligation should be $293.51.2 Because Palmer paid his share of the child support
bi-weekly, this monthly amount would correlate to a bi-weekly payment of
$135.46.3 The family court's calculated support obligation does not comport with
the regulations to the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the family
court erred by failing to make specific findings justifying its variance from the
Guidelines. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-17-470(A) (2010) ("In any proceeding for
the award of child support, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the
award which would result from the application of the [G]uidelines required under
[s]ection 43-5-580(b) is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. A
different amount may be awarded upon a showing that application of the
[G]uidelines in a particular case would be unjust or inappropriate. When the court
orders a child support award that varies significantly from the amount resulting
from the application of the [G]uidelines, the court shall make specific, written
findings of those facts upon which it bases its conclusion supporting that award.
Findings that rebut the [G]uidelines must state the amount of support that would
have been required under the [G]uidelines and include a justification of why the
order varies from the [G]uidelines."). Thus, we remand this matter to the family
court to make findings as to Palmer's bi-weekly support obligation consistent with
the foregoing.
Because the family court's calculation of Palmer's bi-weekly child support
obligation affected the family court's calculation of the amount Palmer owed in
arrearages, we also instruct the family court to recalculate the arrearage on
remand.4
1
$1,800 + $1,733 = $3,533; $1,733 ÷ $3,533 = .49 or 49%
2
$599 * .49 = $293.51
3
($293.51/month) * (12 months/year) ÷ (26 bi-weeks/year) = $135.46
4
To the extent Palmer argues the arrearage should have been calculated retroactive
to the filing of his April 22, 2016 complaint for a reduction in child support due to
We reverse the family court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.5
LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
job loss, we note the April complaint was filed under a different case number than
the order on appeal. Further, to the extent Palmer argues the family court should
have reduced his monthly support obligation to $100 during the period of his
unemployment between April and November 2016, regulation section
114-4710(A)(2) provides that in cases where the parents' combined gross monthly
income is less than $750, the family court may reduce child support on a
case-by-case determination to no less than $100 per month. See S.C. Code Ann.
Regs. 114-4710(A)(2) (2012 & Supp. 2017). Because Palmer and McCray earned
a combined gross monthly income of greater than $750 for the applicable period,
we find Palmer's argument is without merit.
5
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.