Woods v. Bradford, S10A0636
*All courts mentioned are at the state level.
- The parties divorced in 1992, and Wife was awarded custody of the parties’ two minor children.
- In 2001, the elder child, (“Son”) went to live with Husband. The younger child (“Daughter”) continued living with Wife.
- The parties then consented to a modified custody order establishing, among other things, child support obligations. The parties agreed that Husband’s child support obligation for Daughter was $640.87 per month, while Wife’s child support obligation for Son was $728.00 per month.
- The order provided that since each party had custody of one minor child, and in lieu of exchanging support checks in the amounts set out above, Wife would pay to Husband the sum of $75.00 per month, representing the difference in the support obligations of each party to the other.
- Wife paid Husband $75.00 per month until Son reached majority, then ceased. Thereafter, Husband did not pay any child support to Wife for Daughter. After Daughter reached majority, Wife filed a motion for contempt alleging that Husband was obligated to pay the $640.87 per month in support of Daughter after Son reached majority, and that the amount in arrears was $14,740.01.
- The trial court ruled that the parties’ final judgment and decree did not include a directive to pay certain child support obligations, and as such denied the citation for contempt.
- The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, and found that the parties’ modified custody order specifically set Husband’s child support obligation for Daughter at $640.87, and that the requirement that Wife pay $75.00 per month to Husband until Son reached majority was clearly a practical accommodation.
- The order was held to embrace separate child support obligations and did not provide for any termination of Husband’s obligation to Wife prior to the time at which Daughter reached majority.
Attorneys:
- Chadwick D. Plumley for appellant
- Donald R. Donovan for appellee
Trial Court:
Paulding Superior Court; Judge Kenneth G. Vinson