Court Opinion

ID: 9716689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:48:03.08942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.860273
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority except in its treatment of the $100 per week the court ordered the wife to pay into trust for the benefit of the daughter when she reaches her twenty-first birthday.
As the majority appropriately recognizes, the ordered arrangement cannot be said to constitute support for a minor child. Nor can it be supposed that the trial judge thought it was. It was rather clearly, I think, simply a device imposed to insure that despite the wife's profligate spending, the daughter would realize a tangible benefit from the property settled upon her mother. As such, the device was not authorized by law and cannot stand.
I would therefore treat as presently superfluous the question of how much the wife might have been ordered to contribute for support. Instead I would reverse that portion of the order and remand for a new hearing to establish the support obligations of the parties.