Bowers v. Bowers, COA99-1509.
| Decision Date | 16 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. COA99-1509.,COA99-1509. |
| Citation | 141 NC App. 729,541 S.E.2d 508 |
| Parties | Michael Everette BOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice Mauldin BOWERS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Helms, Cannon, Henderson & Porter, P.A., by Thomas R. Cannon and Christian R. Troy, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant.
No brief filed by defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff appeals from an order awarding defendant $591.00 per month in on-going child support, support arrearages of $19,654.00 plus interest to be paid at $323.96 per month and attorney's fees of $5,000.00 plus interest to be paid at $82.42 per month, in addition to certain medical expenses and insurance.
The parties were married on 3 February 1983 and a child, Mykel Elizabeth Bowers (Mykel), was born 7 September 1983. The parties later separated and divorced. Mykel has lived with each parent for various periods of time and was placed in residential care from August, 1996 until August, 1998, as a result of being certified as a "Willie M" class member.
Plaintiff filed this action on 3 April 1997 seeking custody of Mykel. Defendant answered and counterclaimed on 1 May 1997 seeking custody and child support pursuant to the terms of the custody and separation agreement previously executed by the parties. The trial court found that neither plaintiff nor defendant was gainfully employed at the time of the hearing and calculated child support based on each party's "earning capacity," which was determined from their last monthly salaries multiplied by twelve months.
In his first assignment of error, plaintiff contends the trial court erred in awarding child support based upon each party's "earning capacity" without a showing that there had been an intentional or bad faith suppression of either party's income.
At the outset, we note Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 69, 326 S.E.2d 863, 868 (1985) (citations omitted).
In determining the amount of a child support obligation, "[t]he judge must evaluate the circumstances of each family and also consider certain statutory requirements[.]" Id. at 68, 326 S.E.2d at 867 (citation omitted). N.C.Gen.Stat. § 50-13.4(c)(1999) sets forth the circumstances to be considered:
(c) Payments ordered for the support of a minor child shall be in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education, and maintenance, having due regard to the estates, earnings, conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party, and other facts of the particular case.
Thus, a determination of child support obligation amounts must be made on a case by case basis. Plott, 313 N.C. at 68, 326 S.E.2d 863. In Plott, this Court articulated in great detail a trial court's duty in this regard:
To comply with G.S. 50-13.4(c), the order for child support must be premised upon the interplay of the trial court's conclusions of law as to the amount of support necessary `to meet the reasonable needs of the child' and the relative ability of the parties to provide that amount. To support these conclusions of law, the court must also make specific findings of fact so that an appellate court can ascertain whether the judge below gave `due regard to the estates, earnings, conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party, and other facts of the particular case.' Such findings are necessary to an appellate court's determination of whether the judge's order is sufficiently supported by competent evidence. If the record discloses sufficient evidence to support the findings, it is not this Court's task to determine de novo the weight and credibility to be given the evidence contained in the record on appeal.
Id. at 68-69, 326 S.E.2d at 867, quoting N.C.Gen.Stat. § 50-13.4(c); Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712, 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lafrance v. Lafrance
...bad faith, to avoid family responsibilities. Pataky v. Pataky, 160 N.C.App. 289, 585 S.E.2d 404, 415 (2003) (citing Bowers v. Bowers, 141 N.C.App. 729, 541 S.E.2d 508 (2001)); Sharpe v. Nobles, 127 N.C.App. 705, 493 S.E.2d 288 In Florida, [i]ncome on a monthly basis shall be imputed to an u......
-
Respess v. Respess
...Sharpe v. Nobles, 127 N.C.App. 705, 708, 493 S.E.2d 288, 290 (1997) (internal citation omitted), and citing Bowers v. Bowers, 141 N.C.App. 729, 732, 541 S.E.2d 508, 510 (2001)). In this case, defendant does not challenge the trial court's findings as to the effect of his intentional “course......
-
Pataky v. Pataky
...that the actions which reduced the party's income were taken in bad faith, to avoid family responsibilities. Bowers v. Bowers, 141 N.C.App. 729, 732, 541 S.E.2d 508, 510 (2001) (noting rule that absent a finding that defendant deliberately suppressed his income to avoid his support obligati......
-
Balawejder v. Balawejder
...that the actions which reduced the party's income were taken in bad faith, to avoid family responsibilities. Bowers v. Bowers, 141 N.C.App. 729, 732, 541 S.E.2d 508, 510 (2001) (noting rule that absent a finding that defendant deliberately suppressed his income to avoid his support obligati......