stating that it was “within the trial court’s discretion to determine not only the father’s earnings, but also his ability to earn”
How later courts described this case
- stating that it was “within the trial court’s discretion to determine not only the father’s earnings, but also his ability to earn”
- “it is within the trial court’s discretion to determine not only [a parent’s] earnings, but also [that parent’s] ability to earn”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur, except as to one issue. The main opinion requires the trial court to reconsider "what expenses the son actually incurred for room and board." The mother provided evidence on the actual expenses incurred by the child and on his estimated expenses for room and board based on his attending Auburn University. The trial court stated in its order that it based the postminority-support arrearage on "one-half (1/2) of actual college expenses incurred . . . as compared to [the child-support amount determined by the child-support guidelines]." After reviewing the evidence, I conclude that the mother provided sufficient evidence to warrant the trial court's award. I question what evidence will provide, on remand, a more accurate accounting of the "actual expenses incurred by the child." For the sake of judicial economy, I would affirm the trial court's judgment. Therefore, I dissent as to this issue.