Colonna v. Colonn

Facts

M and F were married in 1983 and separated in 1996. F sought primary legal and physical custody of the parties' four children, who at the time ranged in age from nine to three years old. The parties agreed to a temporary order of shared legal and physical custody, pursuant to which the children lived three and one-half days per week with each parent. They later amended the agreement to provide that the children would alternate between parental homes on a weekly basis. The trial court ordered F to pay M $6,132.00 per month ($73,584.00 per year) in child support and to provide health insurance for M and the children. The trial court also ordered F to pay the interest portion of the mortgage on the marital home; homeowners, personal property and automobile insurance; private school tuition; and other expenses. On June 18, 1998, the trial court reduced F's monthly support payment to $5,132.00 per month ($61,584.00 per year) because it determined that M's counsel fees had improperly been included as a reasonable need of the children. It further reduced his obligation to $3,132.00 per month ($37,584.00 per year) on August 18, 1998, based on credits for overpayment of M's counsel fees. The trial court awarded primary legal and physical custody to F during the school year and primary legal and physical custody to M during the summer. M has partial custody of one or more of the children on Tuesday and Thursday during the school year, and F has partial custody of one or more of the children on Tuesday and Thursday during the summer. The parties alternate holidays and weekends throughout the year, and each parent has two weeks with the children for summer vacation. F sought to terminate child support on the basis that he was now the children's primary custodian. F introduced his 1997 tax return indicating monthly net income of $16,130.00 which was a significant decrease from the monthly net income of $85,942.00 shown on his 1996 tax return. He presented evidence of living expenses and reasonable needs in the amount of $14,834.23 per month. M had a net earning capacity of $4,607.00 per month. Mother presented the same reasonable needs as she did during the 1997 support hearing, namely $28,208.00 per month for herself and the children, with $21,106.00 per month attributable to the children. She maintained that her expenses were the same as they had been when the parties shared custody equally. M had custody 27% of the year, and F had custody 73% of the year. After some calculations, the court determined that M's obligation with F having 73% of the time would be $11,309. F's annual obligation would be $14,833 with M having custody 27% of the time. Offsetting one against the other leaves the support obligation of F to M of $3,524 per year at $294 per month. M and F filed exceptions. The court ordered F to pay $810.00 per month for support of the children. F appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed. F, as the obligee, does not owe child support to M, who is the obligor. It concluded: Where primary physical custody is changed from one parent to the other parent, no valid justification remains for requiring the new custodial parent to continue payments that are intended to be purely for the support, benefit and best interest of the children. Consequently, directing support payments to a non-custodial parent . . . serves no purpose for the children after custody changes and would only confer a personal benefit upon the non-custodial parent if the payments were allowed to continue. This appeal resulted.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.