New Georgia Family Law Family Law Blog | Remboldt Law Firm, LLC
  • New GA Court Opinions
  • Resources - Books
  • Resources - More
  • About
  • Contact

Final degree internally contradicted each party’s share of their minor child’s uninsured health case expenses.

Posted Aug.02, 2010 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Child Support, Equitable Division, Visitation

 Child Support, Equitable Division of Marital Property, Visitation

Judgment in parties’ divorce case, PARTIALLY REVERSED, and case REMANDED; final degree internally contradicted each party’s share of their minor child’s uninsured health case expenses, since test of decree required 61-39 percent split and incorporated child support addendum required 50-50 split; trial court erred in ordering husband to maintain minor child’s health insurance, without including that expense in calculating his child support obligation, since husband testified that his monthly heath premium would be $238, OCGA 19-6-15 (b)(6) requires proration of child care and health insurance expenses between parents in arriving at adjusted child support obligation and, under section (b)(7), trial court must modify adjusted child support obligation by factoring amount of health and child care expenses each parent actually pays; trial court did not abuse its discretion in requireingwife to pay half of loan balance as of date of divorce decree, rather than date of trial, even though trial court did not enter decree until 155 days after trial, since trial court has broad discretion in dividing marital property, and OCGA 15-6-21(a), which requires rulings on motion within 30 days after hearing in counties with less than 100K inhabitants applies only to motions for new trials, injunctions, demurrers, and all other motion, not to bench trials in divorce actions; trial court had discretion to order sale of parties’ residence and to account for how existing mortgage would be paid until sale; trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering husband to continue paying mortgage on marital residence, where he still resided, until he purchases home or it is sold; husband benefited from trial court’s omission of steps requiring pro ration of child care expenses under 19-6-15(b) because trial court order parents to split child care expenses equally and father’s pro rate share of expenses would have been 57&; trial court did not abuse its discretion in its visiation award.

Dupree v. Dupree, S10F0516 (06/07/2010), 10 FCDR 1824

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

Search

Categories

  • Adoption (7)
  • Alimony (16)
  • Appeal (26)
  • Articles (3)
  • Attorney Fees (28)
  • Capacity (3)
  • Child Support (51)
  • Common Law Marriage (1)
  • Contempt (18)
  • Custody (77)
  • Deprivation (29)
  • DFACS (2)
  • Divorce (49)
  • Equitable Division (23)
  • Evidence (20)
  • Grandparents (14)
  • Guardan Ad Litem (1)
  • Insurance Benefits (1)
  • Jurisdiction (26)
  • Legitimation (4)
  • Mediation (1)
  • Military (1)
  • Modification (21)
  • Parental Rights (27)
  • Paternity / Legitimation (8)
  • Prenuptial Agreement (5)
  • Property Settlement (4)
  • Service by Publication (1)
  • Service of Process (1)
  • Settlement Agreement (12)
  • Temporary Protective Order (TPO) (3)
  • Transcripts (10)
  • Trial Counsel (4)
  • UCCJEA (8)
  • UIFSA (2)
  • Uncategorized (7)
  • Visitation (15)

Archives

  • May 2012 (6)
  • April 2012 (7)
  • March 2012 (8)
  • February 2012 (7)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • December 2011 (8)
  • November 2011 (6)
  • July 2011 (4)
  • June 2011 (6)
  • May 2011 (9)
  • April 2011 (3)
  • March 2011 (8)
  • February 2011 (8)
  • January 2011 (7)
  • October 2010 (10)
  • September 2010 (7)
  • August 2010 (6)
  • July 2010 (10)
  • June 2010 (10)
  • May 2010 (11)
  • April 2010 (9)
  • March 2010 (9)
  • February 2010 (10)
  • January 2010 (11)
  • December 2009 (10)
  • November 2009 (10)
  • October 2009 (3)
  • September 2009 (7)
 
Powered by WordPress.   A CJ Remboldt Blog
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright 2010 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, JD/MBA. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.