Search for: "Childs v. Gross" Results 1 - 20 of 872
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2017, 6:29 am by Markus Sermons
” Recently, the Third District Court of Appeals, in the case of Schafstall v. [read post]
6 Jul 2019, 1:00 am by Robert L. Mues
Ohio Supreme Court Rules One-Time Commisions To Be Excluded In Gross Income Calculation Of Child Support Under the new Supreme Court Decision, A.S. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 4:46 am by Emma Kent
The post Update on how to calculate child maintenance payments for higher earners following James v Seymour [2023] appeared first on Rayden Solicitors. [read post]
17 May 2017, 4:30 am by koherston
This appeal involved several postdivorce disputes, only two of which are noteworthy: the dispute over what constitutes a “day” for child-support purposes, and the trial court’s calculation of Father’s gross income for child-support purposes. [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 7:45 am by Diana Skaggs
Modification of Child Support Under KRS 403.211 Applies Even if the Parties Agreed to a Lower Amount; Equally Shared Parenting Time Arrangement Does Not Modify the Parties' Respective Percentages of Combined Gross Monthly Income; and Agreement for a Paren Diana Skaggs Thu, 09/05/2019 - 10:45 Read more about Modification of Child Support Under KRS 403.211 Applies Even if the Parties Agreed to a Lower Amount; Equally Shared Parenting Time Arrangement Does Not Modify the… [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 7:45 am by Diana Skaggs
Modification of Child Support Under KRS 403.211 Applies Even if the Parties Agreed to a Lower Amount; Equally Shared Parenting Time Arrangement Does Not Modify the Parties' Respective Percentages of Combined Gross Monthly Income; and Agreement for a Paren Diana Skaggs Thu, 09/05/2019 - 10:45 Read more about Modification of Child Support Under KRS 403.211 Applies Even if the Parties Agreed to a Lower Amount; Equally Shared Parenting Time Arrangement Does Not Modify the… [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 7:29 pm
  The First District found merit in one issue raised, specifically that the child support set did not use the “gross up” method for support calculation despite a schedule of timesharing that warranted it. [read post]