In Re Marriage of McLaren v. McLaren
Trial court erred by ordering husband to pay half of child care expenses without finding a deviation from the standards.
In Re Marriage of Maritato v. Maritato
(a) Sunday placement until 7:30 p.m. is not the equivalent to overnight care. (b) Disparity in disposable incomes does not in and of itself make the application of the percentage standards unfair. However, trial court was required to perform an analysis of the relevant statutory factors.
In Re Marriage of Rumpff v. Rumpff
Trial court had discretionary authority to not apply shared time formula where it recognized the potential for future litigation over variable expenses. Trial court also correctly concluded that placement until 7 p.m. does not constitute “equivalent care”. Equivalent care must be something of substance – not just an evening meal.
Vlies v. Brookman
Unless the court deviates from the percentage guidelines, it must set family support at an amount that results in a net payment after taxes of no less than the child support calculated under the guidelines.
State v. Sullivan
Providing an apartment, phone service, cable television, cleaning, travel expenses, a leased vehicle and a per diem, plus payment of the “gross up” that he would have pay for taxes are not legitimate business expenses and therefore should be included in income for child support.
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.
Mason v. Hall
Trust provision was properly established for New York Yankee ballplayer Melvin Hall in light of the precarious earning capacity of major league baseball players.
In Re Marriage of Parrett v. Parrett
Deviation from percentage standard affirmed for high income father where no basis for need was shown.
In Re Marriage of Resong v. Vier
Ordering excess child support to be paid into trust for college was abuse of discretion. Court cannot consider post-high school expenses.
In Re Marriage of Hubert v. Hubert
(1) Although percentage standards cannot give absurd results in high income cases, trial court here failed to articulate why guidelines would be unfair in case where husband earns $1 million per year. (2) Court has discretion to establish trust for post-majority needs for children.