Hendry v. Hendry
292 Ga. 1
| Ga. | 2012Background
- John Allan Hendry and Sally Frances Hendry divorced after having three children; Sally was awarded primary physical custody and John was ordered to pay $2,400 monthly in child support.
- John appeals, contending multiple errors in calculating his child support obligations; the core issue is the treatment of his health insurance premium reimbursements.
- John’s employer pays him $935 monthly to reimburse his family health insurance premium, but the reimbursement is described as a benefit, not as salary.
- The trial court counted the health-insurance reimbursement as gross income, which the court of appeal agrees was error.
- Statutory analysis centers on OCGA § 19-6-15(f)(1)(C) and (h)(2)(A), determining whether employer-paid health-insurance premiums are excluded or adjusted for in child support.
- The case is remanded for recalculation of gross income and the corresponding child support amount, removing the reimbursements from gross income and adjusting accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether health-insurance reimbursements are gross income | Hendry argues reimbursements are employer-paid premiums not gross income. | Hendry contends the reimbursement is not a standard added benefit or direct employer payment; it should be treated as gross income per statute. | Reimbursements are employer-paid premiums and must be excluded from gross income. |
| Whether health-insurance costs borne by employer should adjust child support | If employer bears the premium, the court should adjust child support to reflect the cost. | Adjustments are only appropriate if the parent bears the costs, not when the employer bears them. | Adjustment should reflect costs borne by the employer as not imputable to the parent; remove double credit risk. |
| Whether Sally’s daycare expenses were properly credited | John contends Sally’s credit for daycare expenses was improper because she was unemployed at hearing. | Sally was employed by the time of the hearing and would directly pay childcare; adjustments for actual costs were appropriate. | Credit for actual daycare expenses was proper; Sally’s ongoing costs were appropriately accounted for. |
| Whether the trial court properly admitted the child support worksheet | John argues the worksheet presented by Sally was not entered into evidence or formally filed. | Rules do not specify consequences for untimely submission; substantial evidence supported the hearing. | Delay in presenting the worksheet did not prejudice; substantial evidence supported the court’s action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupree v. Dupree, 287 Ga. 319 (Ga. 2010) (proration and adjustment of child care expenses per OCGA)
- Stowell v. Huguenard, 288 Ga. 628 (Ga. 2011) (remedies for erroneous child support calculations)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 309 Ga.App. 590 (Ga.App. 2011) (child care expense adjustments align with guidelines)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 288 Ga. 670 (Ga. 2011) (adjusting presumptive child support for work-related childcare expenses)
- Culver v. Pilkauskas, 859 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2004) (flex credits as employer-paid health-insurance premiums)
- Berryhill v. Ga. Community Support & Solutions, 281 Ga. 439 (Ga. 2006) (employer-paid health insurance premiums as standard added benefit)
- Krieger v. Walton County Bd. of Commrs., 269 Ga. 678 (Ga. 1998) (interpretation of statutory language; harmonization of related provisions)