Court Opinion

ID: 9742741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:19:22.048802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:35.657261
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority's disposition of all the issues presented except that of child support. Concerning support for the two daughters of the parties, the Commissioner found there were monthly expenses for the children of $798 which represented a weekly expense of $228.
Apart from the obvious mathematical error in this finding, it is simply not sustained by the evidence. The wife testified to monthly household expenses as follows:

Of this sum the husband was separately ordered to pay half the mortgage and insurance ($277.50) leaving a monthly balance of $745.50. Two-thirds of this amount, or $497.67, is attributable to child support.
*556In addition there were expenses for the daughters to attend parochial school, but the husband was ordered to pay these separately. There was also evidence that about $700 per year was expended on clothing for the girls, or an additional $58.34 per month.
Dividing the total monthly expenses thus obtained ($555.34) by 4% weeks per month results in a weekly support figure of $128.16. That figure is so far removed from the $228 per week found by the court that one is left with the firm conviction that the court's figure is clearly erroneous.
I would therefore reverse the determination of child support and remand for further proceedings.