Court Opinion

ID: 9704666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:42:35.435179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:04.200649
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court’s order. I disagree with the majority’s mathematics and conclusions as to respondent’s income. The testimony and exhibits concerning his income had to be a nightmare for the trial court. Heather Keigher, payroll processor for respondent’s employer, was called as a witness by the petitioner. The cross-examination of Keigher and the trial court’s colloquy with Keigher further justifies the trial court’s decision. The respondent’s brief is correct in stating: “Ms. Keigher, as a witness for Petitioner, made clear why Respondent’s W-2 forms and pay stubs were not accurate reflections of Respondent’s net income. Although all of Respondent’s draw, SPIFFs, and commissions appear on his W-2 forms and as income on his pay stubs, these documents fail to reflect the ‘repayment’ of Respondent’s draw from his commission proceeds. Accordingly, that Respondent’s W-2 forms reflect so-called taxable income of more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) misrepresents Respondent’s actual taxable income. In view of the Trial Court’s grasp of the actual net income Respondent receives from his employer’s convoluted payroll system, the Trial Court justifiably did not increase Respondent’s child support obligation.” Our decision remands for a new hearing and a second bite at the apple by petitioner.