Stowell v. Huguenard
288 Ga. 628
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Stowell and Huguenard divorced in 2005; divorce decree set child support and alimony.
- Stowell experienced substantial employment changes and moved to modify support in 2008.
- Trial court modified to $981.25 monthly child support plus 25% of any gross commissions over a $3,500 base.
- Child support worksheet showed incomes and calculated presumptive amounts; basic obligation for two children was $1,308.
- Trial court added a separate 25% over-base income provision without proper written findings or Schedule E deviation entry.
- Court majority vacated the judgment and remanded to conform with the child support guidelines and statutory deviations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deviation from presumptive support required written findings. | Stowell: deviation supported by evidence of needs and income variance. | Huguenard: deviation not properly found or documented; must follow OCGA 19-6-15(i). | Deviation invalid; requires written findings and Schedule E entry. |
| Whether the 25% of nonrecurring income provision is authorized under OCGA § 19-6-15(f)(1)(D). | Stowell: statute allows one-time payments for nonrecurring income. | Huguenard: not permitted to alter presumptive amount without proper deviation process. | Remanded; the provision cannot stand as an embedded deviation without proper procedure. |
| Whether the trial court properly used the worksheet and calculated presumptive amounts. | Stowell contesting extra deviation beyond worksheet results. | Huguenard contends guidelines dictate pro rata shares and deviations with findings. | Court erred by not following the worksheet-based presumptive amount and deviation rules. |
| Whether the trial court could award an extra amount outside the presumptive schedule under the guidelines. | Stowell argues the extra amount exceeds authority and alters presumptives. | Huguenard contends discretion to consider special circumstances. | Judgment vacated; need compliant deviation approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Turner, 285 Ga. 866, 684 S.E.2d 596 (2009) (Ga. 2009) (deviation must follow statutory procedure under 19-6-15(i))
- Hamlin v. Ramey, 291 Ga.App. 222, 661 S.E.2d 593 (2008) (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (income shares model; presumptive amount determined by worksheet)
- Spurlock v. Dept. of Human Resources, 286 Ga. 512, 690 S.E.2d 378 (2010) (Ga. 2010) (guidelines’ discretion and need for written findings under 19-6-15(d))
- Roberts v. Tharp, 286 Ga. 579, 690 S.E.2d 404 (2010) (Ga. 2010) (emphasizes presumptive amount with deviations must be supported by findings)