Faulkner v. Frampton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Faulkner v. Frampton

456 S.E.2d 88, 216 Ga. App. 785, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1228, 1995 Ga. App. LEXIS 297

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

DocketA94A2702

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 456 S.E.2d 88 (Faulkner v. Frampton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faulkner v. Frampton, 456 S.E.2d 88, 216 Ga. App. 785, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1228, 1995 Ga. App. LEXIS 297 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Ruffin, Judge.

We granted Paul Faulkner’s application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s upward modification of a child support award based on Faulkner’s substantial increase in income.

Faulkner contends the trial court erred in awarding child support outside the range enumerated in the Georgia Child Support Guidelines (OCGA § 19-6-15) without a written finding of special circumstances.

OCGA § 19-6-15 (c) provides: “The trier of fact may vary the final award of child support, up or down, outside the range enumerated in . . . this Code section upon a written finding of special circumstances. The special circumstances may be any factor which the trier of fact deems to be required by the ends of justice. . . .” The statute was recently amended to permit a specific finding on the record in lieu of a written finding. OCGA § 19-6-15 (b); Ga. L. 1994, p. 1728, § 1. “The finding ‘must state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include justification of why the order varies from the guidelines.’ ” Ehlers v. Ehlers, 264 Ga. 668, 669 (1) (449 SE2d 840) (1994).

The trial court’s order modifying Faulkner’s child support obligation sets forth ample justification supporting an increased award, but “the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines” is not set forth by the court in its order or elsewhere in the record, as required by Ehlers, supra. Nor is there a finding as to Faulkner’s gross income to enable one to compute his current child support obligation. Thus, this case must be remanded for written findings in accordance with OCGA § 19-6-15 (b) and Ehlers, after which either party may apply for appellate review.

Since consideration of the remaining enumerations of error is dependent upon a correct award, we decline to do so at this time.

Case remanded with direction.

Birdsong, P. J., and Blackburn, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ruffin, Judge.

We granted Paul Faulkner’s application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s upward modification of a child support award based on Faulkner’s substantial increase in income.

Faulkner contends the trial court erred in awarding child support outside the range enumerated in the Georgia Child Support Guidelines (OCGA § 19-6-15) without a written finding of special circumstances.

OCGA § 19-6-15 (c) provides: “The trier of fact may vary the final award of child support, up or down, outside the range enumerated in . . . this Code section upon a written finding of special circumstances. The special circumstances may be any factor which the trier of fact deems to be required by the ends of justice. . . .” The statute was recently amended to permit a specific finding on the record in lieu of a written finding. OCGA § 19-6-15 (b); Ga. L. 1994, p. 1728, § 1. “The finding ‘must state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include justification of why the order varies from the guidelines.’ ” Ehlers v. Ehlers, 264 Ga. 668, 669 (1) (449 SE2d 840) (1994).

The trial court’s order modifying Faulkner’s child support obligation sets forth ample justification supporting an increased award, but “the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines” is not set forth by the court in its order or elsewhere in the record, as required by Ehlers, supra. Nor is there a finding as to Faulkner’s gross income to enable one to compute his current child support obligation. Thus, this case must be remanded for written findings in accordance with OCGA § 19-6-15 (b) and Ehlers, after which either party may apply for appellate review.

Since consideration of the remaining enumerations of error is dependent upon a correct award, we decline to do so at this time.

Case remanded with direction.

Birdsong, P. J., and Blackburn, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 S.E.2d 88, 216 Ga. App. 785, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1228, 1995 Ga. App. LEXIS 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faulkner-v-frampton-gactapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack