Kinsey v. Kinsey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kinsey v. Kinsey

158 S.E.2d 684, 116 Ga. App. 627, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 910

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 8, 1967

Docket43180

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E.2d 684 (Kinsey v. Kinsey) 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

Kinsey v. Kinsey, 158 S.E.2d 684, 116 Ga. App. 627, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 910 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

The sole question for decision is whether the provision in an agreement by a husband for the payment of a stipulated sum or a percentage of his gross monthly income, whichever might be greater, as child support, the contract having been incorporated in and made a part of a subsequent divorce decree, applies to the amount of his income before or after deduction of business expenses. This was settled by the Supreme Court in Holland v. Holland, 222 Ga. 467 (150 SE2d 673) to mean the husband’s “entire earnings . . . without deduction of expenses incurred.”

Consequently, a contrary ruling by the trial court was error, and the judgment based thereon must be

Reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

The sole question for decision is whether the provision in an agreement by a husband for the payment of a stipulated sum or a percentage of his gross monthly income, whichever might be greater, as child support, the contract having been incorporated in and made a part of a subsequent divorce decree, applies to the amount of his income before or after deduction of business expenses. This was settled by the Supreme Court in Holland v. Holland, 222 Ga. 467 (150 SE2d 673) to mean the husband’s “entire earnings . . . without deduction of expenses incurred.”

Consequently, a contrary ruling by the trial court was error, and the judgment based thereon must be

Reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E.2d 684, 116 Ga. App. 627, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsey-v-kinsey-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack