Holloway v. Holloway
| Decision Date | 01 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. S10F1417.,S10F1417. |
| Citation | 10 FCDR 3471,702 S.E.2d 132,288 Ga. 147 |
| Parties | HOLLOWAY v. HOLLOWAY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Brenda H. Trammell, Madison, for appellant.
Kelly & Kelly, Roy R. Kelly, III, Monticello, for appellee.
Jeffrey Wayne Holloway (Husband) and Rachel Rebecca Holloway (Wife) separated and entered into a separation agreement dated December 9, 2009. Pursuant to this agreement, Husband took custody of the couple's younger daughter, Railey, and Wife took custody of the couple's older daughter, Kate. Using the mandatory child support guidelines of OCGA § 19-6-15, it is undisputed that Husband owed Wife child support in the amount of $550 per month, and Wife owed Husband $1,568 per month. The parties agreed that Wife would pay Husband $1,000 per month, the result of subtracting Husband's obligation to Wife and rounding the result to an even number. To set forth this understanding, the separation agreement states:
Wife shall pay to Husband as child support for the support and maintenance of Railey Rebecca Holloway the sum of $1,000 per month.... Because of the difference in income, Husband shall not be required to pay Wife for the support and maintenance of Elizabeth Kate Holloway.
In addition, Husband agreed to maintain health insurance on both children and has properly done so. The parties agreed, however, that this payment by Husband for insurance would not be used to offsetany of his support obligations on required child support worksheets. The record shows that, prior to signing the separation agreement, Wife, a well-educated pharmacist, consulted with an attorney who went over the document with her line by line. At all times, Wife indicated that she fully understood the agreement, and she signed it to achieve finality as soon as possible. Subsequently, the trial court incorporated the quoted language of the agreement into the final divorce decree, which was issued on January 11, 2010.
On February 1, 2010, Wife filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to set aside the divorce decree. As the basis for her challenge, Wife argued that the divorce decree contains a deviation from the child support guidelines without including any findings stating why the deviation was appropriate. Based on evidence that the agreement was the product of Wife's voluntary negotiation, the trial court denied Wife's claims, stating that the $18 differential from the guidelines was not a proper basis for negating the divorce decree. The trial court also assessed attorney fees against Wife in the amount of $1,000. Wife appeals these rulings.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 591(2), 690 S.E.2d 397 (2010).
In this case, it is undisputed that there is, at least, an $18 difference in the amount of child support mandated by the child support guidelines and that which is actually being paid by the parties. Husband contends that the parties did not intend for this amount to be a deviation from the child support guidelines. The statute, however, controls, and it indicates that a deviation means "an increase or decrease in the presumptive amount of child support." Under thisdefinition, the parties' agreement, as well as the trial court's order incorporating that agreement, contains a deviation.
When incorporating a child support deviation into a divorce decree, OCGA § 19-6-15 makes certain findings mandatory.
Where a deviation is determined to apply and the factfinder deviates from the presumptive amount of child support, the order must explain the reasons for the deviation, provide the amount of child support that would have been required if no deviation had been applied, and state how application of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. Black
...guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate considering the relative ability of each parent to provide support.” Holloway v. Holloway, 288 Ga. 147, 149(1), 702 S.E.2d 132 (2010) (citations omitted). See also OCGA § 19–6–15(c)(2)(E)(iii), (i)(1)(B). As our Court of Appeals has explained, “[t......
-
Day v. Mason
...by Mason, there is no evidence that any such agreement contained findings of fact to support a deviation. See Holloway v. Holloway , 288 Ga. 147, 150 (1), 702 S.E.2d 132 (2010) (trial court should have rejected parties’ agreement to a deviation that did not comply with OCGA § 19-6-15 and di......
-
Reid v. Reid
...mandated reversal. Landry , 342 Ga. App. at 287 (2), 801 S.E.2d 553. In support of this result, we cited two cases: Holloway v. Holloway , 288 Ga. 147, 702 S.E.2d 132 (2010), and Hughes v. Great Southern Midway, Inc. , 265 Ga. 94, 454 S.E.2d 130 (1995). Landry , 342 Ga. App. at 287 (2), 801......
-
Winchell v. Winchell
...been brought to the trial court’s attention in a proper motion prior to filing the notice of appeal, citing Holloway v. Holloway , 288 Ga. 147, 148-49 (1), 702 S.E.2d 132 (2010) (failure to make factual findings raised in motion for new trial); Brogdon v. Brogdon , 290 Ga. 618, 624-25 (5) (......