Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

01/12/88 MARITA K. O'NEIL v. TERENCE M. O'NEIL

Filed: January 12, 1988.

MARITA K. O'NEIL, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
v.
TERENCE M. O'NEIL, PETITIONER-APPELLEE



APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT, The Honorable Louis L. Bloom, Special Judge, Cause No. S-74-2891.

Garrard, P.j., Ratliff, C.j., and Staton, J. Concur.

Author: Garrard

GARRARD, P.J.

In August 1975 the marriage of Terence and Marita O'Neil was

dissolved. Custody of four minor children was awarded to the mother and the father was ordered to pay support in the gross amount of 46.10 per month.

On March 30, 1977 the mother petitioned for an increase in support. In August the court determined no material change in circumstances had been shown and denied the petition. Following the mother's motion to correct errors the court, however, vacated the denial and determined an additional hearing should be held. Additional evidence was heard and the matter was taken under advisement.

On July 31, 1984 the court ordered modification increasing the support allowance to 20 per month. Following the father's motion to correct errors this modification was vacated on July 2, 1985 and the motion was reset for hearing. Once again additional evidence was heard and on December 4, 1985 the court entered its final order on all matters before it relating to child support. No challenge has been made on the ground that some issue or other was not properly before the court, and we assume the matters adjudicated were litigated by consent. Furthermore, neither party has challenged the reasonableness of support amounts, the sums paid by the father, or the computations concerning deficiencies. Accordingly, we accept all those findings as correct as to the specific sums in question.

The court order of December 4, 1985 determined that over the intervening years all four of the parties' children had become emancipated and that accordingly the court's task was to determine whether there was a deficiency owed to the mother and, if so, the amount thereof.

The court was correct in doing so. In its opinion the trial court determined the following:

1) The 1984 order had been appropriate and the court should have increased support to 20 per month effective November 30, 1977.

2) There was a potential arrearage of $17,647.10 if the original order continued unmodified until the date of emancipation of the youngest of the four children;

3) If the modification to $620 per month effective November 30, 1977 was computed, the support deficiency would be $32,269.10;

4) Each of the parties' four children have become emancipated, one in February 1980, one in June 1982, one in February 1984, and the last in June 1985, and that the father should be equitably entitled to a 20% reduction of support at the $620 per month rate when and as each of the first three became emancipated, which when computed out would leave a net arrearage under the modified order of $18,009.10;

5) Since August 1977, the father had directly paid educational costs for his children in the amount of $32,697 and had assumed responsibility to repay student loans ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.