In re the Marriage of McCord
Colorado Court of Appeals
910 P.2d 85 (1995)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1988, David L. McCord (defendant) and Deborah A. McCord (plaintiff) divorced. David was ordered to pay $300 per month in child support based on his $16,400 yearly salary as a construction worker. In 1994, David won $2 million in a state lottery and immediately quit his job. Deborah filed for a child-support modification on the ground that David’s sudden increase in income constituted a change of circumstance. The district court held a hearing on the matter. The district court concluded that David’s lottery winnings constituted income for a child-support-obligation calculation. The district court also found that because David had voluntarily quit his job, the income he had previously made should be calculated into the child-support-obligation award. Based on the new child-support-obligation calculation, David was ordered to pay $781 per month. David appealed on the ground that Deborah did not show that the child had an increased economic need in order to support the modification. David also appealed on the ground that the trial court erred in including the income he made as a construction worker because he had testified that he was forced to quit his job because of an injury that occurred one year prior to his winning the lottery. The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Metzger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.