Phyllis Gail Franz filed for divorce from Charles Franz, her husband of 28 years, and sought alimony, equitable division of the marital estate, custody of the couple’s minor child, and support for that child. Mr. Franz answered, claiming that alimony should be disallowed due to his wife’s desertion. The day trial was scheduled, the parties announced they had agreed to a settlement of all issues and, after a hearing, the trial judge instructed the parties to submit an agreement and divorce decree to the cоurt. However, the agreement was not submitted. The trial court denied Mr. Franz’s subsequent motion to enforce the agreement and the matter proceeded to trial, where the jury heard evidence that Mr. Franz received a monthly gross payment of $2,760 in military retirement pay and had a private-sector job that paid $7,333 gross a month ($88,000 a year) for a monthly totаl gross income of $10,093 ($121,116 a year). Nevertheless, the jury valued Mr. Franz’s gross income at $94,506 per year, set child support at 17 рercent ($1,340 a month), found that no special circumstances existed under OCGA § 19-6-15 (c), gave Ms. Franz half of Mr. Franz’s military retirement pay, and awarded her no alimony.
We granted Ms. Franz’s application for discretionary appeal to cоnsider the limited issue whether, upon the proper application of the requirements of OCGA § 19-6-15, the jury’s calculation оf Mr. Franz’s gross income was authorized by the evidence in this case. Finding that calculation to be error, we reverse and. remand for a new trial solely on the issue of child support. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the enforcement of the settlement agreement, which Mr. Franz raises in his cross-appeal.
1. The Child Support Guidelines laid down in OCGA § 19-6-15 (b) and (c) are mandatory and must be considered by any trier of fact setting the amount of child support.
Pruitt v. Lindsey,
While we recognize there will be instances in which the factual determination of the amount of gross income may involve conflicting *466 evidence, that is not the case here where the evidence adduced by Mr. Franz himself clearly established the correct amount of his gross income. We find no merit in Mr. Franz’s аrgument that the jury, in determining gross income, was entitled to “discount” amounts such as the retirement pay awarded to Ms. Franz, the minor child’s college costs, insurance premiums, etc. These considerations had no relevancy whatsoever tо the jury’s determination of Mr. Franz’s gross income. Rather, such matters became relevant only when the jury turned to consider whеther the range of child support set forth in the statute should be varied because of the presence of the sрecial circumstances set forth in OCGA § 19-6-15 (c). Such special circumstances expressly include other support a party is providing or will be providing, id. at (9); the income of the custodial parent, id. at (15); and “[a]ny other factor which the trier of fact deems to be required by the ends of justice.” Id. at (18). However, the jury in this case found no special circumstanсes existed to vary the amount of child support under the guidelines.
The record in this case establishes that the jury failed tо calculate correctly the gross income of Mr. Franz. Therefore, because the jury failed to properly apply OCGA § 19-6-15, the judgment is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of child support.
2. Ms. Franz’s other contention of error is not addressed because it is outside the limited scope of the grant of discretionary review.
Grim v. Grim,
3. In his cross-appeal, Mr. Franz challenges the trial court’s refusal to enforce the settlement agreement between the parties. The record reveals that at the time the parties began negotiating the agreement, Mr. Franz was an officer in the military; by the time Mr. Franz sought to enforce the agreement, he had retired early frоm the military in order to take a significantly higher-paying job in the private sector. In a divorce action, a settlement agreement, “if accepted by the court, becomes the judgment of the court itself and therefore the court has the discretion to approve or reject the agreement, in whole or in part. [Cit.]”
Bridges v. Bridges,
Judgment affirmed in Case No. S97X1369 and reversed and remanded in Case No. S97A1368.
Notes
The agreеment, in facial compliance with OCGA § 19-6-15, reflected an amount of child support that was calculated based uрon Mr. Franz’s monthly gross income from the military; Mr. Franz’s monthly gross income increased by several thousand dollars when Mr. Franz became a private-sector employee.