Simmons v. Simmons

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a divorce decree addressing child support, life insurance, medical expenses, responsibility for a company-owned vehicle, and attorney fees. The court held that the trial court properly included Subchapter S corporation K-1 income and certain employment benefits in gross income for child-support calculations, and it upheld the life-insurance trust requirement and other challenged provisions.

Holdings

1. Schedule K-1 income is properly included in a parent's gross income when calculating child support, even when the income is not actually distributed to the parent as cash.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by using a three-year average of Husband's K-1 income.
3. Employer-provided benefits that significantly reduce a parent's personal living expenses are properly treated as fringe benefits and included in gross income for child-support purposes.
4. Husband failed to show that company-paid life and medical insurance, retirement contributions, and the tax loan were included in the gross-income figure, and his challenge to the wage figure presented nothing for review because he supplied the same figure used by the trial court.
5. A trial court may order a parent to maintain life insurance for the benefit of a minor child in an amount exceeding the parent's future child-support obligation and may require that the proceeds be placed in a trust for the child's benefit.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to treat the life-insurance premiums as a child-support deviation when the employer, rather than Husband, paid the premiums.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the child's medical-insurance and uncovered medical expenses as it did.
8. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Husband possession of the company-owned truck and assigning him associated debts and expenses for purposes of equitable division.
9. The trial court properly awarded Wife $15,000 in attorney fees under OCGA § 19-6-2 after considering the parties' financial circumstances, and the award was not an abuse of discretion.
10. A parent's agreement is not required before a court imposes a life-insurance provision under OCGA § 19-6-34.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly included Husband's Schedule K-1 income from a closely held Subchapter S corporation in his gross income for child-support purposes.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by averaging three years of K-1 income when calculating gross income.
3. Whether company-paid truck, vehicle, cell-phone, and credit-card benefits were properly treated as fringe benefits and included in gross income.
4. Whether the trial court improperly included or failed to account for company-paid life insurance, medical insurance, retirement contributions, and a tax loan in Husband's gross income.
5. Whether the trial court could require Husband to maintain life insurance exceeding his cumulative child-support obligation and establish a trust for the proceeds without his agreement.
6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to treat the cost of life insurance as a child-support deviation.
7. Whether the trial court properly allocated the child's medical-insurance premiums and uncovered medical expenses.
8. Whether the decree properly allocated possession and debts associated with the company-owned truck for purposes of equitable division.
9. Whether the trial court properly awarded Wife $15,000 in attorney fees under OCGA § 19-6-2.

Disposition

affirmed