It is undisputed that a father or husband cannot intentionally reduce his actual earnings and then use the reduction in earnings to obtain a reduction in the amount of support he must provide for his family.
How later courts described this case
- It is undisputed that a father or husband cannot intentionally reduce his actual earnings and then use the reduction in earnings to obtain a reduction in the amount of support he must provide for his family.
- concurring and dissenting opinion of SPAETH, J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Price, J.:
Although I believe that the present circumstances indicate that the lower court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the potential earning capacity of the appellee in the formulation of its support order, I disagree with the majority’s disposition of this case. As the majority correctly observes, appellate courts do not wish to substitute themselves as “super-support courts” because they “[h]ave not had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses and so determine credibility.” Yet, the majority not only concludes that the lower court abused its discretion, but also directs that the award be adjusted to a sum certain. In view of the above-stated principle, I believe that we should more properly remand to the lower court with directions to increase the amount of the award in a manner which reflects the factors discussed in the majority’s opinion.
I would therefore reverse the order of the court below and remand with directions to increase the award in an amount consistent with the principles of the majority opinion.