This is an appeal from the grant of a decree of legal separаtion. The judgment entered in this case resulted from the imposition of sanctions, pursuant to Rule 61.-01(b), against appellant-husband. Therefore, it is not a default judgment in the ordinary sense but is treated as a judgment upon trial by the court.
Portell v. Portell,
On appeal the husband does nоt contest the trial court’s imposition of sanctions. Rather he alleges that the trial court’s division of marital property and its award of child support and attorney’s fees to the respondent-wife lacked an evidentiary basis.
Wе address first the question of the award of child support. Respondent-wife was granted the primary care, custody, and control of the two minor children and awarded $350 per child per month for child support. The specific issue raisеd is whether there was sufficient evidence of appellant’s ability to pay the child support award.
It is the duty of the court in setting the amount of child support to determine the reasonable needs of the children
*274
and the reasonable ability of the father to meet those needs.
In re Marriage of Pine,
There was no evidence adduced at trial concerning appellant’s income. When asked about her husband’s financial resources, respondent testified: “Well, I don’t have definite information as far as my husband’s finances. So its just what I feel. So I’m not certain.”
Respondent tacitly concеdes the paucity of her testimony but argues that appellant’s ability to pаy $700 per month in child support can be inferred from an earlier pendentе lite award, when he apparently consented to an order which obligаted him to pay more than $700 per month in child support and other expensеs, and from
the filing
of his income and expense statement at a hearing on his pоst-trial motion. Respondent’s argument must fail. There is no evidence in the recоrd which indicates that the trial court considered the earlier pen-dentе lite award. The income and expense statement of appellаnt was not received into evidence but was simply filed with the court. The mere filing of a document does not put it before the court as evidence.
See e.g. Gambino v. Gambino,
We therefore hold that the award of $700 per mоnth child support lacked an evidentiary basis only as to the father’s ability to pay.
In re Marriage of Maupin,
We have reviewеd the record and considered appellant’s other contentions. Within thе scope of review prescribed by
Murphy v. Carron,
As a finаl point, the record shows that two items of marital property, a $5,000 U.S. Savings Bond аnd some stock valued at $2,000, were not distributed by the original decree. The failure to distribute this property does not affect the decree’s validity or finality for the purposes of our review.
Schulz v. Schulz,
Accordingly, the award of $700 per mоnth for child support for the two minor children of the marriage is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court is further directed to determine the status of the $5,000 U.S. Bond and the stock valued at $2,000 and distribute same as it deems appropriate. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.