- 10 -
maintenance order; rather, the statute merely requires that
certain findings must be made prior to granting a maintenance
order.
In support of the latter argument petitioner suggests that
because Mr. Landreth provided other benefits to petitioner
outside of the terms of the decree all of the benefits she
received from Mr. Landreth, including the $1,800 monthly cash
payments, must have been made pursuant to something other than a
decree from the circuit court. We disagree. The decree might
have been based upon the agreement between petitioner and Mr.
Landreth, but it was a decree that ordered the payments
nonetheless. Respondent has not taken the position that the
other benefits conferred upon petitioner by Mr. Landreth,
pursuant to an oral agreement or otherwise, must be included in
her income under section 71. Moreover, petitioner's argument on
this point is undermined by actions taken by petitioner and Mr.
Landreth subsequent to the docket sheet entry that demonstrate
they considered the docket sheet entry to be the source of
Mr. Landreth's obligation to make the payments here under
consideration.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be
entered for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011