In Re Marriage of Derleth v. Cordova
Court reasonably exercised its discretion in not incorporating husband’s fringe benefits for insurance in his income for purposes of maintenance.
Court reasonably exercised its discretion in not incorporating husband’s fringe benefits for insurance in his income for purposes of maintenance.
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. No reason was given why the same income would not be available for maintenance.
Trial court does not have authority to change placement within two years of the initial placement order, absent finding of harm, if the modification would substantially alter the time a parent spends with the child.
Award of alimony or child support that exceeds the itemized expenses is not, per se, an abuse of discretion. Award must be considered in light of accustomed standard of living and ability to pay. Alimony and support is based on the needs of the wife and children and the ability of the husband to pay.
(1) Court abused its discretion when it limited the period of maintenance without adequate findings of fact. (2) A party’s lack of initiative or effort to become self-supporting is a relevant factor for the court to consider, but it is not determinative.
Evidence of marital misconduct not admissible for determining maintenance.
Maintenance not limited to just cases of need. It is to be a flexible tool to ensure a fair and equitable determination in each individual case.
Award of maintenance is a discretionary determination which, to be sustained, must be based on facts in the record and the appropriate and applicable law.
Debts incurred after commencement may affect ability to pay maintenance.
Maintenance is not based solely on need – it is not limited to those situations where a spouse cannot support his or her self.