Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning a Family Court order regarding child support and college expenses stemming from a divorce judgment. The Supreme Court modified the initial order by addressing objections from both parents, particularly concerning the financial responsibility for college expenses not covered by a tuition benefit program. The court sided with the mother, noting that the children became ineligible for the program when she left her job. The father was precluded from challenging this provision due to a lack of earlier contestation. Furthermore, the court found no willful violation by the father regarding the disclosure of income, as he did not receive required W-2 forms. Additionally, the court noted it was incorrect to require the father to pay college expenses for a child over 21, absent agreement, and reversed a requirement for him to cover medical expenses not raised in petitions. The matter is remitted to Family Court for recalculation of expenses. Other contentions were dismissed as meritless.
Legal Issues Addressed
Disclosure of Income and Compliance with Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The father was not found to have willfully failed to disclose income as he did not receive his W-2 forms in time.
Reasoning: The court agreed with the father that he did not willfully fail to disclose income for 2012 and 2013 as he was required to provide his W-2 forms by February 15 each year, which he did not receive from the father.
Modification of Support Magistrate Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court modified the Family Court order by granting certain objections and vacating specific ordering paragraphs.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court modified the order by granting the father's fourth and seventh objections and partially granting the mother's second objection, while vacating certain ordering paragraphs of the Support Magistrate's decision.
Obligation to Pay College Expensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that both parties were responsible for college expenses not covered by a tuition benefit program, but sided with the mother regarding the ineligibility of the children for the program.
Reasoning: The primary issue involved the obligation to pay college expenses as outlined in the divorce judgment, which mandated that both parties cover expenses not covered by a college tuition benefit program associated with the mother’s employment.
Preclusion from Contesting Prior Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The father was precluded from contesting the provision regarding college expenses as he had failed to do so during a prior appeal.
Reasoning: The father, having failed to contest this provision during a prior appeal, was precluded from doing so now.
Requiring Payment for Adult Childrensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: It was erroneous to require the father to pay college expenses for a child over 21 without a prior agreement.
Reasoning: The court also found that it was erroneous to require the father to cover college expenses for a child over 21 without a prior agreement.
Unraised Issues in Petitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court overturned a modification requiring the father to pay a share of medical expenses as this issue was not raised in the petitions.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the court overturned a modification requiring the father to pay a pro rata share of unreimbursed medical expenses, as this issue was not raised in the petitions.
Willful Violation of Divorce Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the finding that the father did not willfully violate the divorce judgment concerning college expenses due to uncertainty about the amounts owed.
Reasoning: The court upheld the Support Magistrate's finding that the father did not willfully violate a divorce judgment regarding college expenses, noting uncertainty about the expenses owed.