remanding because order did not reveal basis for award either by specific findings or by incorporation of parties' worksheets
How later courts described this case
- remanding because order did not reveal basis for award either by specific findings or by incorporation of parties' worksheets
- “We cannot review a support order to determine if it complies with the guidelines unless the order reveals the basis for the amount awarded. Such revelation could be accomplished either by specific findings or by incorporation of a proper worksheet.”
- discussing the statutory presumption of equal division and rebuttal of the same
- “the principle of res judi-cata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with parts II, III and IV of the majority opinion. I also concur in the result 'as to part I of the opinion because I believe the court's discussion of potential or imputed income and the Child Support Cuidelines related thereto is beside the point. The trial court did not find that Larry was underemployed and might reasonably make $800 per week from his auto business. The court expressly determined that Larry's testimony on the subject was not credible, and the court expressly found that Larry was in fact earning about $300 per week from the business.
Thus, the available question (one which appellant leaves unargued) is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the court's determination. Under the facts, as discussed by the majority, it was. .And in any event, the issue is unavailable since Larry elected not to argue it on appeal. I therefore concur with the majority's conclusion that no error was committed.