HUNTINGTON - A recent state Supreme Court ruling involvingovertime earnings in a child support case has set a new precedentstatewide.
The state Supreme Court has upheld a Cabell Circuit Court rulingrequiring family lawmasters to consider overtime worked during thepast three years when modifying child support payments.
The ruling clarifies a state law that requires parents to includea portion of their overtime earnings if they have an establishedpattern of working extra hours.
However, state law did not specifically discuss how the patternshould be determined if the couple has been divorced for a number ofyears.
"This ruling will give a precedent for courts to follow across thestate," said Huntington attorney Mike Woelfel, who represented CathyKirwin in the child support dispute against her ex-husband, StephenKirwin.
The Supreme Court said in its ruling, "We believe that the policythe Legislature expressed in (state code) that children have a rightto share in their natural parent's level of living is limited to itsplain meaning."
The Kirwins divorced in June 1997, and the couple's three kidswent to live with Cathy Kirwin. Stephen Kirwin was ordered to paychild support.
Four years later, Stephen Kirwin petitioned to have his childsupport modified by a lawmaster because his oldest daughter was 18and his middle daughter lived with him.
During a hearing, the couple disagreed over how Stephen Kirwin'sovertime should be considered. Stephen Kirwin said the lawmastershould only consider his overtime before the divorce. Cathy Kirwinwanted the lawmaster to factor in the overtime her ex-husband workedbetween 1998 and 2001.
The lawmaster decided to consider Stephen Kirwin's pattern ofovertime before the divorce. Cathy Kirwin appealed that decision toJudge Dan O'Hanlon, who agreed with her.
Stephen Kirwin appealed O'Hanlon's ruling to the Supreme Court.The high court said the law clearly states that overtime compensationshould be based on overtime worked during the "previous 36 months."
Woelfel said he was pleased the court even considered the appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment