Harte v. Hand

81 A.3d 667 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D has three children, each of whom has a different mother. D's oldest son lives with D and his current wife; that mother does not contribute to his support. D's younger son lives with his mother, T.B. (P). His youngest child, a girl, lives with Harte (P). D was employed as a concrete layer and finisher before he was seriously injured in a 2003 garage collapse at the Tropicana Casino Hotel in Atlantic City. D received a settlement of $1.2 million in 2007. He claims to have netted $533,822 after paying several 'obligations.' At the time of his personal injury settlement, D was married to Harte (P) and paying child support to T.B.(P). After the settlement, D agreed to an imputation of $57,200 in annual income when recalculating child support for T.B.(P). Harte (P) and D were divorced in 2008, and D again consented to an imputation of $57,200 in annual income as part of their January 2009 final judgment of divorce. D unsuccessfully moved to reduce child support for both children, claiming he was unable to obtain through wages and investments the agreed-upon imputed income. D eventually supplied the judge with a vocational expert's report. The three-page report stated that D worked but 'could not continue due to injury-related impairments.' D completed a tractor-trailer driver training class thereby obtaining a 'Class A' commercial driver's license and was seeking employment as a local short-haul truck driver, which would pay an average annual salary of $36,514. D refused to seek work as a more lucrative long-distance 'over the road' driver because of the potentially negative impact on his 'child-rearing responsibilities.' The report concluded that $36,514 was, therefore, D's 'probable income' within a 'reasonable degree of vocational-economic certainty.' The judge calculated both support obligations using D's imputed annual income of $57,200 as if the only other child D supported was the oldest son living with him. D appealed.