hooglya.blogg.se - Kevin keil

#Kevin keil full#
#Kevin keil trial#

312, 319-20, 70 N.W.2d 127, 132 (1955) (clarification of ambiguous or uncertain judgment does not amount to an amendment of the judgment).

Appellant moved the court to clarify the judgment by setting child support at a specific dollar amount.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Kevin Keil appeals from an order denying his motion to set his child support at a specific monthly amount, denying his motion to forgive child support arrearages, and denying in part his motion to deduct certain expenses from his gross income for purposes of determining child support.

#Kevin keil trial#

While it was within the trial court's discretion to consider employee business expenses due to travel and meals, we will not disturb the court's decision to allow appellant a deduction for housing expenses but none for food. The evidence does not show what portion of these expenses is food, what is travel, and what is lodging. No receipts or other documents were provided. He submitted only an assertion in his affidavit that in the past he has incurred $125-150 per week for food, travel and lodging when working away from home.

Here, appellant presented no specific documentation as to food expense.

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the obligor to deduct travel and food expenses from his gross income for child support purposes? Go to The trial court had made it clear that appellant's interpretation, that the decree set a nonvariable monthly obligation based on his income in the month the decree was issued, was wrong. The trial court had previously rejected Keil's argument that $250 per month was sufficient.

#Kevin keil full#

Here, the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that appellant's failure to pay the full amount due was willful. A trial court will not forgive arrearages unless the failure to pay was not willful. The trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to forgive arrearages and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.

We affirm the trial court's refusal to forgive the second set of arrearages.

Larson reversed and remanded a child support award where the trial court's calculation of net income did not take into account all of the obligor's financial resources. "The child support guidelines require the use of a net income figure which may be difficult to compute for self-employed persons." Larson v. 1986) A calculation of net income is necessary to allow calculation of guidelines child support.

Even where calculation of disposable net income may be difficult, child support awards should be based on some calculation of income.

Minnesota case law favors child support awards based on specific calculations of net income.