Effective date of modification; attorney fees In a case where the trial court deviated from the Child Support Guidelines, the trial court had the discretion to set the effective date of the new modified order on a date other than the date a motion to modify was filed. Where the trial court ordered father to pay attorney fees based on its finding that he filed several frivolous discovery motions, the trial court was not required to make findings that mother was a party acting in good faith with insufficient means to defray the cost of the litigation. 

Father filed a motion to modify support when two of the three children of the parties reached the age of 18. Mother also filed a motion to modify, requesting that support be increased due to an increase in the needs of the one child under the age of 18 and an increase in father’s income. The trial court determined that it was appropriate to deviate from the Guidelines, made numerous findings about the needs of the child and the financial circumstances of the parents, and increased the father’s child support obligation. The trial court ordered that the modified support order be effective January 1, 2022, instead of the date that either parent filed their motion to modify. The trial court also ordered the father to pay $15,000 in attorney fees to the mother. Both parents appealed. 



The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the amount of support set by the trial court was supported by sufficient findings of fact that were adequately supported by the evidence. The appellate court rejected mother’s argument that the trial court erred by not making the new support order effective as of the date she filed her motion to modify. The court of appeals held that, while a trial court cannot modify a support obligation as of a date before the date of the filing of a motion to modify, the court has discretion to set an effective date after a motion is filed that the trial court determines is reasonable under the circumstances. The court of appeals held that the findings in the order showed that the trial court properly considered all the factors in the case when determining the effective date and did not enter an order that was “unsupported by reason.” Father argued on appeal that the trial court order for attorney fees was improper in that the order contained no findings that the mother had insufficient means to defray the cost of litigation as required by GS 50-13.6. The court of appeals rejected this argument, concluding that the trial court ordered the payment of fees because it found that father had filed a significant number of frivolous discovery motions, causing unnecessary expense to mother. The court of appeals held that GS 50-13.6 does not require findings regarding the ability of the party to pay the cost of litigation when fees are awarded based on a finding that “the supporting party has initiated a frivolous action or proceeding” and the amount awarded will be as the trial court deems “appropriate under the circumstances.”