Court Opinion

ID: 9587985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:28:35.475546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:47.023929
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree with the majority opinion which holds that the $1,100 per month award is inadequate and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which affirms “... the lower court’s order insofar as it *59orders payment of non-allocated support for appellant and her three minor children.”
In my view, the statute contemplates that normally the award of alimony and child support be separated. In my view, “good cause to the contrary” has not been shown. The finding of the trial judge in his order said:
The non-allocation of child support and alimony would be advantageous to both parties in that the respondent would be able to pay more with non-allocation. I find that the respondent would receive more benefit in terms of tax advantages in making the payment on the home owned by the parties insofar as interest deduction, and repondent would receive greater tax advantages in claiming the minor children as dependents.
There is nothing in the record to warrant this result that would not be in all cases wherein a husband and father has an obligation to support his wife and children.
Here, we have a medical doctor whose wife helped to send him through graduate school and gave birth to his three children. He is abundantly able to support his wife and children and pay his share of supporting the government by way of taxes. No reason has been given as to why he deserves or needs a tax advantage. To give one a tax advantage merely increases the burden of all other taxpayers.
I agree with the argument of wife’s counsel, who, in his brief, said: “The award of the non-allocable sum was done purely as an accommodation to the [husband].” In my view, good cause has not been shown.
I would hold that the lower court erred in decreeing non-allocation and would direct upon remand that allocation be ordered in the usual fashion.
Lewis, C. J., concurs.