Edgar v. Johnson, 2
| Decision Date | 31 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CV,2 |
| Citation | 152 Ariz. 236,731 P.2d 131 |
| Parties | Lisa A. EDGAR, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Vance Edward JOHNSON, Defendant/Appellant. 5832. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This appeal is taken from the amount of child support awarded in a paternity action.
Appellee filed suit alleging that appellant was the father of her child and requesting, inter alia, support and maintenance in the amount of $2,500 per month. Appellant admitted paternity, and the sole issue before the court was the amount of child support to be paid by appellant. At the conclusion of a hearing, the court awarded child support in the amount of $1,500.
The sole contention on appeal is that the amount of support awarded by the court was far beyond the needs of the child as established by the evidence. We agree and reverse and remand with directions.
At the hearing, appellee testified that she had monthly expenses of some $2,100 and an income of $600. Admitted into evidence were her calculations that the monthly expenses for the child were $921.75. There was extensive testimony concerning appellant's income which we find to be generally irrelevant. Once it is established that the non-custodial parent has sufficient income to provide for the needs of a child, the amount to be awarded is determined by the needs of the child, not the non-custodial parent's income. A.R.S. § 12-849. Here, it was clearly shown that appellant's income was sufficient to provide the required child support. Evidence that he had purchased a new Porsche and had an extensive wardrobe, a stereo and other possessions was irrelevant.
We believe that the trial court improperly included in the amount of child support awarded a sum intended to pay appellee's expenses. In its order, the court stated: "The financial resources and needs of the child and those of the Plaintiff are well in excess of $2,000 and the Plaintiff earns netly [sic] income of not more than $600.00 per month." (Emphasis added.) Apparently the trial court included the appellee's needs in arriving at its decision because of A.R.S. § 12-849(C), which states that the trial court should consider, inter alia, "[t]he financial resources and needs of the custodial parent." However, this factor is to be considered only in deciding whether the custodial parent can contribute towards the child's support. It is not a basis for awarding support to the custodial parent for her needs. Where no valid marriage exists, and in the absence of an agreement between the parties, there is no obligation to provide any spousal support. Burger v. Burger, 156 So.2d 905 (Fla.App.1963); Davis v. Misiano, 373 Mass. 261, 366 N.E.2d 752 (1977); Brown v. Brown, 51 Misc.2d 839, 274 N.Y.S.2d 484 (1966).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guardianship of Hedin, Matter of, 93-1460
... ... He could (1) live with them in Las Vegas, (2) live with Julie, who at that time resided in Cedar Falls, or (3) stay in northwest Iowa. Curtis ... ...
-
Reed v. Reed
...basis for determining whether or in what amount she could herself contribute toward her children's support. 3 See Edgar v. Johnson, 152 Ariz. 236, 731 P.2d 131, 132 (App.1986). There was also no evidence from which petitioner's own average monthly personal needs and expenses could be calcul......
-
East v. Matthews
...the increased amount is appropriate. ¶ 7 Following the repeated urgings of Matthews, the court, however, relied on Edgar v. Johnson, 152 Ariz. 236, 731 P.2d 131 (App. 1986), in which this court held that "[o]nce it is established that the non-custodial parent has sufficient income to provid......
-
Guardianship of Reyes, Matter of
... ... 235 ... In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP OF Ruth Ryan REYES, An Incapacitated Person ... No. 2 CA-CV 5759 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona, ... Division 2, Department B ... Dec. 31, 1986 ... ...