Broderson v. Hobbins
Child support modification motion was property denied based on claim preclusion where mother had voluntarily agreed to dismiss her prior motion with prejudice.
Marriage of Smith v. Lambouths
Circuit court reasonably exercised its discretion when it imposed child support under the straight percentage formula and ordered mother to pay all variable expenses where parties had engaged in substantial litigation.
In Re Marriage of Bjorgo v. Bjorgo
Courts look to taxable income when determining ability to pay child support. Therefore, Sub S distributions, including the portion used to pay tax obligations, are properly considered in determining gross income.
Derleth v. Cordova
Although wife failed to preserve argument for appeal, court can exclude fringe benefits for health, dental and vision insurance from husband’s income as he had to maintain this insurance and pay the premiums until the children reached the age of majority.
Kanehl v. Pitel
Trial court did not have to find shirking to impute income given the flexibility of the father’s income.
Tierney v. Berger
No error by trial court in setting child support both as a fixed amount and a percentage order from bonus.
Tierney v. Berger
Evidence of substantial change in circumstances was overwhelming. Several factors would “probably have qualified for a substantial change in circumstances.”
May v. May
Nonmodifiable floors on child support are enforceable as long as they are no longer than 33 months.
In Re the Finding of Contempt In Gilbert
Contempt order affirmed where payor (who was a lawyer) did not disclose interest in class action lawsuit and did not report a substantial change in income. (Not published, but citable)
Lyman v. Lyman
Settlement from wrongful termination of employment lawsuit was income available for child support.
Callen v. Callen
Trial court did not have to find shirking to impute income given the flexibility of the father’s income.
Lyman v. Lyman
Settlement from wrongful termination of employment lawsuit was income available for child support.
Ladwig v. Ladwig
Trial court properly exercised its discretion for not deviating from guidelines which required child support of $8,455 per month, despite father’s argument that it exceeded the needs of the children.
Huhn v. Stuckmann
Stipulation limiting ability to seek a modification of family support is against public policy and cannot provide a basis for estoppel.
Stevenson v. Stevenson
Trial court properly ordered retroactive child support where Husband failed to make proper financial disclosure.
Waters v. Waters
Trial court erred in finding that child stipulation was percentage-based.
Jalovec v. Jalovec
Restrictive child support provisions are against public policy. Further, a substantial change of circumstance occurred when James received placement of one of the children; therefore, the trial court properly entertained the motion to modify child support.
Motte v. Motte
Stipulation making future child support unmodifiable in the event of a change in placement is against public policy and void. However, stipulation forgiving arrearages is not contrary to public policy.
Paulhe v. Riley
Payer entitled to credit for support payments made during period where covered by social security disability payments paid to payee for the minor child.
In Re Marriage of Jarman v. Welter
Court commissioner and trial court incorrectly excluded overtime income as a general policy. Overtime income can be excluded if it would be unfair to the parties or other factors support exclusion.