Smith v. Carter
| Decision Date | 30 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A10A1760.,A10A1760. |
| Citation | 305 Ga.App. 479,699 S.E.2d 796 |
| Parties | SMITHv.CARTER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
305 Ga.App. 479
699 S.E.2d 796
SMITH
v.
CARTER.
No. A10A1760.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
July 30, 2010.
William B. Johnson, for appellee.
BLACKBURN, Senior Appellate Judge.
Following a bench trial, Steven Smith, the natural father of S.A.S., appeals the $70,224 lump-sum back child-support award against him and in favor of Carrie Carter, the natural mother and custodian of S.A.S. He argues that the superior court failed to apportion the amount between him and the higher-income mother, and also failed to consider the child support guidelines instituted by the legislature, including a consideration of (i) the amount of his much smaller annual income of less than $27,000 and (ii) his other child support obligations. We agree that under the circumstances, requiring the father to bear the entire financial burden of the child's care for the last 12 years was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the back support portion of the award and remand the case to the court to reconsider such in light of this opinion.
Construed in favor of the trial court's findings, Jacobs v. Chatham County, Ga.,1 the evidence shows that some time after their divorce, the father and the mother began to live together again, during which time they conceived a son (S.A.S.), who was born on August 5, 1994. The couple separated again in November 1997, with the mother retaining custody of the son. Over the next twelve years, the father would have the son over for visits, usually about three to four days a month. The father apparently paid the mother only a single payment of $100 toward the son's financial support. During this time, he remarried and adopted five children.
In 2009, the mother sued the father for past and future child support. The father answered, admitting that the boy was his and seeking to legitimate him. After legitimation was established, the court conducted a hearing on the issue of child support. The court found the father's monthly income to be $2,222.80 and the mother's to be $6,384.20, which relative proportions had been generally true throughout the 12 years. Pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, see OCGA § 19-6-15, the court calculated future support from the father to be $115 per month. Based on the evidence it found credible at the hearing, the court calculated that the mother had expended $83,600 for the child's care over the preceding 12 years; the court subtracted 16 percent of the amount (representing the father's weekend and summer visitations with the boy) and ordered the father to pay the mother the entirety of the remaining amount as back child support, which came to $70,224. We granted the father's application for a discretionary appeal.
1. The father first complains that the court's finding regarding the $83,600 in expenditures lacked evidentiary support. However, the mother testified as to her actual expenses and calculations underlying this figure, which expenses were based on her personal knowledge. Because the “testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact,” OCGA § 24-4-8, we discern no error. See Jacobs, supra, 295 Ga.App. at 74, 670 S.E.2d 885 (“[o]n appeal from a bench trial, we construe the evidence in favor of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Day v. Mason
...on behalf of K. R. D. While this amount is considered when determining the "maximum for a back support award," Smith v. Carter , 305 Ga. App. 479, 482 (2), 699 S.E.2d 796 (2010), a trial court must also "follow the Child Support Guidelines, which would include at least a consideration of th......
-
Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Morris
...on the part of the driver and was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. See OCGA § 24–14–8 ; see also Smith v. Carter, 305 Ga.App. 479, 480(1), 699 S.E.2d 796 (2010) ("testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact") (citation and punctuation omitted).2. MARTA......
-
Am. Home Serv. Inc. v. a Fast Sign Co. Inc.
...rests on an erroneous legal theory, an appellate court cannot affirm.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Carter, 305 Ga.App. 479, 481(2), 699 S.E.2d 796 (2010). The trial court incorrectly applied the TCPA and awarded damages based on the number of facsimile advertisements sent, ......
-
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Macon, LLC v. Neubauer
...ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Smith v. Carter, 305 Ga.App. 479, 481(2), 699 S.E.2d 796 (2010). The record reflects that on April 2, 2009, Neubauer filed her medical malpractice lawsuit against Laurel Baye and two ot......
-
Domestic Relations
...851 S.E.2d at 827.87. Id. at 839, 851 S.E.2d at 828 (citing Weaver v. Chester, 195 Ga. App. 471, 393 S.E.2d 715 (1990); Smith v. Carter, 305 Ga. App. 479, 482, 699 S.E.2d 796, 798 (2010)).88. Id. (citing Medley v. Mosley, 334 Ga. App. 589, 594(3), 780 S.E.2d 31 (2015)).89. Id. at 840, 851 S......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Elinor H. Hitt
...at 810, 700 S.E.2d at 371. 79. Id. 80. Id. at 811, 700 S.E.2d at 372. 81. Id. (alteration in original); O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(c)(2)(B). 82. 305 Ga. App. 479, 699 S.E.2d 796 (2010). 83. Id. at 482, 699 S.E.2d at 798. and ordered the father to pay future child support of $115 per month. The tria......