Simmons v. Simmons
288 Ga. 670
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Wife filed for divorce from Husband after 16 years of marriage; they have one child born June 1996.
- Bench trial resulted in final judgment ordering child support, life insurance, trust for child, medical costs, truck-related debts, and $15,000 in attorney fees.
- Husband sought discretionary review under the court's Family Law Pilot Project; the Supreme Court affirmed without error.
- Portions of the order included $1,137 monthly child support and life insurance of $150,000 with a trust for proceeds.
- Disputes centered on income calculation (K-1 and fringe benefits), life insurance provisions, medical expenses, truck ownership, and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is K-1 income properly included in gross income for child support? | Simmons argues K-1 income is not actual cash income to Husband. | Simmons contends K-1 income is mere bookkeeping; should be excluded. | K-1 income properly included. |
| Should fringe benefits be included in gross income for child support calculations? | Simmons asserts certain company benefits are not personal income. | Simmons concedes fringe benefits include company-paid expenses that reduce personal living costs. | Fringe benefits properly included in gross income. |
| May the court require life insurance for the child and create a trust for proceeds? | Simmons challenges the scope/ necessity of life insurance and trust. | Simmons argues the court exceeded discretion; life insurance and trust are authorized by statute. | Court properly ordered life insurance and a trust under OCGA 19-6-34. |
| Did the trial court err in allocating the cost of the child’s health insurance and uninsured medical expenses? | Simmons argues misallocation of health insurance premium and expenses. | Court adjusted presumptive support to reflect health insurance costs; uninsured expenses to be divided pro rata. | Court properly accounted for insurance premiums and pro rata medical expenses. |
| Was the truck provision and related debts properly adjudicated? | Simmons contends the truck arrangement should reflect ownership/obligations. | Truck is Company property; decree clarifies Wife has no interest in vehicle or debts. | Provision upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Appling v. Tatum, 295 Ga.App. 78 (Ga.App. 2008) (K-1 income treated as self-employment income for support calculations)
- Wier v. Wier, 287 Ga. 443 (Ga. 2010) (party cannot gain from self-induced error in wage figures)
- Mongerson v. Mongerson, 285 Ga. 554 (Ga. 2009) (attorney fees may be awarded under OCGA 19-6-2; require factual basis)
- Henry v. Beacham, 301 Ga.App. 160 (Ga. App. 2009) (trust/insurance provisions aligned with child support guidelines; court’s reasoning supported)
- Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133 (Ga. 2003) (foundation for Family Law Pilot Project discretionary review)