Pink v. Johnson
Appellant mother of Chamise and Nolina, appeals from an order from the trial court offsetting $13,250 against William Pinks $18, 244.01 total child support arrearage, resulting in a remaining balance of $4,994.01 owed by William to Rosemarie. She contends that the trial court erred because it applied its equitable powers to reduce Williams child support arrears. She also alleges that Family Code[2]section 4504 cannot be applied retroactively to credit Williams Social Security disability payments towards his arrears. In addition, Rosemarie asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the trial courts $13,250 offset against Williams arrears. Finally, she argues that the trial court erred in interjecting a sua sponte objection to a question by counsel for the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) about how defendants arrearage calculation differed from their calculation.
Court conclude that the trial court did not apply equity to reduce Williams child support arrears. Although in its order the trial court stated it was using its equitable powers to offset Williams direct pays for child support, in fact the trial court properly applied statutory authority by giving William credit for his direct payments to Rosemarie. We find that the issue of whether section 4504 can be applied retroactively was waived because Rosemarie did not specifically request the trial court to render a ruling on that particular issue. We also conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial courts ruling that William was entitled to a $13,250 offset against his arrearage. Finally, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the comparison between arrearage calculations because that testimony would have been irrelevant.
Comments on Pink v. Johnson