Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Following a twelve-year marriage, H and W were divorced. The judgment incorporated a comprehensive property settlement agreement. The agreement required H to pay alimony in the amount of $2,600 per month, with the last payment to be made on November 1, 1999. H also agreed to pay child support for each child in the amount of $1,200 per month (2 girls = $2,400 per month), pay for the children's unreimbursed medical expenses and pay for their summer camp. He also agreed to make additional payments in the amount of $800 per month for the 1996 and 1997 school years to be applied to the girls' private school tuition. The tuition for subsequent years was to be negotiable. H's income at the time was $180,000, and W’s was zero. Several months before W's alimony was due to terminate, she filed a motion seeking increased child support. W alleged changed circumstances as a result of the substantial positive change in H's financial situation. As of the date of the motion, W was employed and earning approximately $50,000 per year, while H's income had increased to more than $500,000 per year. W further claimed that, with the pending termination of her alimony, she could no longer afford to support the two children on only $2,400 per month. H, a Certified Public Accountant, was the chief executive officer of a successful financial services firm, which was incorporated as a sub-chapter 'S' corporation. H eventually filed an affidavit indicating his 1999 income, including add-backs, was $554,750. W also sought an increase in plaintiff's contribution to the children's private school expenses. W's allocation of expenses were of particular significance because she had submitted a CIS in 1994, when she was unemployed, listing monthly expenses for herself and the children at $11,060. In July 1999, while the parties were in negotiation, she presented a CIS setting forth monthly expenses in excess of $ 16,000. Significantly, the CIS filed in support of her December 1999 motion for increased child support listed expenses for W and the children at $9,376, apparently $1,700 less than her 1994 expenses. The judge ordered temporary child support of $5,000 per month pending final hearing, and at final hearing ordered plaintiff to pay total child support in the amount of $3,500 per month or $42,000 per year, tax free, allocated equally between the two girls. The maximum amount of child support set forth in the guidelines was $650 per week for two children or $34,000 per year, and that this figure was based on net family income of $2,900 per week, or $225,000 of gross income per year. Even considering W's income of $50,000, the judge had ordered H to pay $8,000 per year more than the maximum in the guidelines. He stated that child support awards were never intended to 'pyramid all the way out' just because a husband earned several times more than the maximum set forth in the guidelines. He made the award retroactive to the termination of alimony--December 1999. The judge maintained H's responsibility for private school tuition at 79% because H would be absorbing greater educational expenses for the children as they matured. H and W appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co