A case of “that was then, this is now.” Trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing to mother for child support purposes income from her job as a sonographer for a 40-hour work week, rather than a 32-hour work week; mother’s prior 32-hour work week was a product of parties’ agreement during their marriage for mother to work fewer hours in order to care for the children, but in light of parties’ divorce, mother would likely need to work a 40-hour week to meet her needs and her duty of support to children. Also: Trial court clearly erred in valuing husband’s capital stock in company for which he worked for purposes of distribution of marital property by relying on a possible but uncertain future stock valuation, as there was very recent evidence of stock’s actual value in that, approximately two weeks before trial, company purchased another shareholder’s capital stock for $1,033 per share, which was essentially contemporaneous evidence of the validity of the existing share price in husband’s stock agreement with company and the actual value of his capital stock.
Laura Morgan is a Family Law Consultant. Laura is available for consultation, brief writing and research on family law issues throughout the country. She can be reached through her website. www.famlawconsult.com
Published on:
