Court Opinion

ID: 9507659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:24:31.986207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:22.143332
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SHEA,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I also join in the affirmance of the property division but dissent from the approval of the automatic cost of living escalator.
This case only demonstrates what has always been known to be the true basis of family law — the only certainty is that there is no certainty.
With absolutely no evidentiary foundation, the trial court ordered child support payments to increase 5 percent per year. No evidence was offered by the wife that the husband’s salary had increased at any particular rate or that it would increase at any rate in the future. It can also be assumed that the husband’s needs as time goes by, will increase. The strange thing here is that an annual increase in child support was not réally a factor in the trial of this case. Rather, the first suggestion came when the wife proposed the automatic increase in the proposed findings and conclusions submitted to the trial court after the hearing was over. With no evidentiary basis in the record, and with no explanation of why the automatic increase was granted, the trial court simply ordered it to be. I find this to be a gross abuse of discretion.