Tannehill v. Tannehill
| Decision Date | 01 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 1489,1489 |
| Citation | 591 A.2d 888,88 Md. App. 4 |
| Parties | Apryl Lynn TANNEHILL v. George Bruce TANNEHILL. , |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Scott A. Bowling, Waldorf, for appellant.
George Bruce Tannehill, pro se.
Argued before WILNER, C.J., and ROSALYN B. BELL and CATHELL, JJ.
This appeal arises from a dispute over the application of the Maryland Child Support Guidelines in a split custody case. While we do not agree with all of Ms. Tannehill's arguments, we do agree that the child support award was incorrectly calculated.
Apryl Lynn and George Bruce Tannehill were married on April 6, 1977. Four children were born of the marriage: Israel Jacob, born October 30, 1977; Autumn Snow, born December 26, 1978; Summer Dawn, born July 21, 1980; and Christian Starr, born October 4, 1982.
The three older children were born healthy. Unfortunately, the youngest child, Christian, was born with a heart defect that required open heart surgery a few days after her birth. Shortly thereafter, Christian suffered a brain hemorrhage. She has cerebral palsy and epilepsy and is mentally retarded.
The parties separated on July 28, 1988. On August 11, 1988, Mr. Tannehill filed a complaint for a limited divorce and pendente lite relief. On September 20, 1988, Ms. Tannehill filed a counter-complaint for a limited divorce, custody and support.
In March of 1989, the case came before the Circuit Court for Charles County for a hearing on the pendente lite issues. On April 19, 1989, the trial court entered an order, pursuant to an agreement reached in open court, granting Mr. Tannehill custody of all four children. The trial court deferred its ruling on the child support issue until the hearing on the final divorce.
On November 6, 1989, Christian was admitted to the Mount Washington Pediatric Hospital in Baltimore. 1 Apparently, Mr. Tannehill had Christian placed in the hospital without Ms. Tannehill's knowledge. There is some dispute regarding whether Christian was responding to treatment. No medical evidence or testimony, however, was ever offered on this point. Ms. Tannehill discovered that Christian had been hospitalized and filed a motion requesting that custody of Christian be awarded to her. On February 9, 1990, the parties entered into a consent order placing Christian in the custody of her mother. After Christian was removed from the hospital, she resided with Ms. Tannehill.
In the meantime, Mr. Tannehill had filed a supplemental complaint for an absolute divorce and Ms. Tannehill had filed an answer. The case came on for trial on September 4, 1990. The parties had reached a settlement on the issues of marital property, custody and visitation. The case proceeded to trial on the issues of the grounds for divorce and child support.
The trial court determined that an absolute divorce should be granted on the grounds of a voluntary separation and that Ms. Tannehill should pay Mr. Tannehill $517 per month as child support for the three children in his custody. The trial court noted that all of Christian's medical needs, except for the special food required for tube feeding and certain medications, were paid for by insurance. The trial court calculated that the special foods and medications for Christian would total $100 per month. The trial court found that Ms. Tannehill had voluntarily removed Christian from the hospital and that all of Christian's expenses were being paid for while hospitalized. 2 Therefore, the trial court concluded that Mr. Tannehill would not pay any support to Ms. Tannehill.
The trial court then calculated the amount of child support Ms. Tannehill would owe Mr. Tannehill. Ms. Tannehill is a registered nurse and her gross income was $2,304 per month. The trial court reduced that amount by $660 to cover the time Ms. Tannehill would lose from work taking Christian to doctors and caring for Christian at home. 3 Mr. Tannehill is unemployed, but receives $1,375 per month in disability and social security benefits. 4 Thus, the parties' combined monthly adjusted actual income is $3,019. The trial court calculated that the support obligation for the three children would be $857. He then added the $100 extraordinary expenses for Christian to this amount. The trial court calculated that Ms. Tannehill's proportional share, 54 percent, would be $517.
On September 28, 1990, the trial court entered an order granting Mr. Tannehill an absolute divorce. The order also required Ms. Tannehill to pay Mr. Tannehill $517 per month for child support. Ms. Tannehill has appealed from that order, arguing that the trial court incorrectly calculated the child support award.
Before addressing the merits of this case, we must address whether the parties' record extract is in accordance with the Maryland Rules. Rule 8-501(c) provides that the record extract must contain all parts of the record that are reasonably necessary for the determination of the issues presented. That Rule also mandates that the record extract include the judgment from which the party has appealed. Rule 8-501(c).
In the instant case, the judgment of the trial court is the written order of September 28, 1990. That order, however, was not provided in the record extract. Therefore, Ms. Tannehill has not complied with the requirements of Rule 8-501(c).
The sanctions for noncompliance with this Rule are contained in Rule 8-501(l), which provides that this Court "may dismiss the appeal or make any other appropriate order with respect to the case." Dismissal of an appeal is discretionary. Kemp-Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. v. S & M Constr. Co., 33 Md.App. 516, 524, 365 A.2d 1021 (1976). In the exercise of our discretion and in the interest of justice, we decline to dismiss this appeal. Mr. Tannehill does not appear to have been prejudiced by this omission. The order itself merely summarizes the decisions made at the hearing and that hearing transcript was included in the record. Moreover, because this case involves child support, it is the children who would suffer, rather than the parties, if this appeal were dismissed. Nevertheless, we admonish counsel for Ms. Tannehill in the future to follow Rule 8-501(c), dealing with the record extract.
In February of 1989, the General Assembly enacted the Maryland Child Support Guidelines as an emergency measure. Md.Fam.Law Code Ann. § 12-201 through § 12-204 (1984, 1990 Cum.Supp.). These guidelines were adopted in conformance with the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-667 (1982 & Supp. II 1984), and federal regulations, 45 C.F.R. § 302.56 (1990). The guidelines serve several purposes. First, the guidelines were intended to remedy the low levels of most child support awards relative to the actual cost of rearing children. Second, the guidelines were intended to improve the consistency and equity of child support awards. Third, the guidelines were intended to improve the efficiency of court processes for adjudicating child support awards. Additionally, the failure to adopt such guidelines could have resulted in the loss of up to $35 million in federal funds for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. See generally Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Bill Analysis, S.B. 49 (1989).
As originally adopted, the guidelines were advisory only and did not give rise to any presumption that the amount arrived at through use of the guidelines was correct. 1989 Md.Laws ch. 2. On April 10, 1990, however, the General Assembly amended the guidelines, mandating their use. The amount of support arrived at through use of the guidelines is presumptively correct. 1990 Md.Laws ch. 58.
The guidelines do not specifically address split custody cases. 5 The guidelines, however, provide that the basic child support obligation is determined in accordance with the schedule of basic child support obligations. This basic support obligation is divided between the parents in proportion to their income. § 12-204(a). For example, if the parents have a combined adjusted actual income 6 of $2,000 per month and two children, the basic child support obligation is $515 per month. If each parent has an adjusted actual income of $1,000, each parent would be responsible for 50 percent of the basic child support obligation, or $257.50. The noncustodial parent would pay the custodial parent $257.50 per month.
A logical extension of these provisions to split custody cases would entail several steps. First, the basic support obligation would be determined separately for the number of children in the custody of each parent. Next, the amount of child support each parent owes the other is calculated by multiplying each parent's proportionate share of the combined adjusted actual income, represented as a percentage, by the amount of the basic support obligation for the children in the other parent's custody. Finally, to avoid having the parents exchange checks, the parent owing the greater amount of support would pay the other parent the difference between the two amounts.
For example, in the case sub judice, the combined adjusted actual income of the parties is $3,019 per month. Mr. Tannehill's proportional share of this total is 46 percent and Ms. Tannehill's proportional share is 54 percent. Mr. Tannehill has custody of three children while Ms. Tannehill has custody of one child. According to the table in § 12-204(e), the basic child support obligation due Mr. Tannehill for the three children in his custody would be $868. 7 The basic support obligation due Ms. Tannehill for the child in her custody would be $446, plus the $100 extraordinary medical expenses. 8 Ms. Tannehill would owe Mr. Tannehill 54 percent of the $868 child support obligation for the three children in his custody, or $468.72. Mr. Tannehill would, in turn, owe Ms. Tannehill 46 percent of the $546 child support obligation for the one child in her custody, or $251.16. Ms....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemley v. Lemley
...is the correct amount unless application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. Tannehill v. Tannehill, 88 Md.App. 4, 15, 591 A.2d 888 (1991). MD.CODE ANN., FAMILY LAW § 12-202(a)(2) (1991 Repl.Vol.). Except for cases in which the court finds a parent to be......
-
Reuter v. Reuter
...erroneous. MARYLAND RULE 8-131(c). A party may also allege that the calculations were performed incorrectly. Tannehill v. Tannehill, 88 Md.App. 4, 16, 591 A.2d 888 (1991). Finally, a party may contend that the court abused its discretion by making an award inconsistent with the guidelines, ......
-
Ruiz v. Kinoshita
...than the court did in Lemley because this case, unlike Lemley , is an above guidelines case. He references Tannehill v. Tannehill , 88 Md. App. 4, 9 n.4, 591 A.2d 888 (1991), for the proposition that one spouse having tax-free income puts the parties on "an unlevel playing field[,]" even th......
-
Knott v. Knott
...speaking for this Court in Shrivastava, said: This policy is codified by the child support guidelines. See Tannehill v. Tannehill, 88 Md.App. 4, 11, 591 A.2d 888 (1991) (Guidelines intended "to remedy the low levels of most child support awards relative to the actual cost of rearing childre......
-
Determination of Child Support Obligation-Fam. Law § 12-204
...787.[196] Id. at 249, 806 A.2d at 778.[197] Id. [198] The statute is silent on split custody arrangements.[199] Tannehill v. Tannehill, 88 Md. App. 4, 591 A.2d 888 (1991).[200] Id. at 12, 591 A.2d at 892.[201] Prior to the statutory overhaul in 2020, the percentage of overnights for shared ......
-
Modification of Orders; Review, Deviation From the Guidelines-Fam. Law § 12-202
...of child support.294 --------Notes:[213] Fam. Law § 12-202(a)(2)(i).[214] Fam. Law § 12-202(a)(2)(iii). [215] Tannehill v. Tannehill, 88 Md. App. 4, 591 A.2d 888 (1991).[216] Id. at 14-15, 591 A.2d at 893 (emphasis added).[217] Id. at 15, 591 A.2d at 893.[218] Id.; Fam. Law § 12-202(a)(2)(v......
-
Child Custody
...Shrivastava v. Mates, 93 Md. App. 320, 612 A.2d 313 (1992). [62] Tannehill v. Tannehill, 88 Md. App. 4, 591 A.2d 888 (1991).[63] 31 Md. App. 58, 66-67, 354 A.2d 467, 473 (1976).[64] 323 Md. 476, 593 A.2d 1128 (1991).[65] Goldmeier v. Lepselter, 89 Md. App. 301, 598 A.2d 482 (1991). [66] Dom......