- 13 -
Thus, Ms. Ambrose argues that the portion of the payments
attributable to child support is not taxable to Ms. Ambrose and
not deductible by Mr. Ambrose. The parties disagree about the
effect of the Superior Court’s proposed allocation of the family
support payments in the opinions issued in response to Ms.
Ambrose’s requests for an increase in the amounts.
Ms. Ambrose argues that the memorandum of opinion and the
April 1991 order provided her with an option to seek modification
of the temporary order and presented her with a recommended
breakdown of the unallocated family support payments if she chose
to pursue that option. The Superior Court stated that if Ms.
Ambrose "wishes" an allocation, "it is to be broken down
$8,000.00 child support, $9,500.00 spousal support." Finally,
the Superior Court also stated that "If both parties are willing,
it will stay as family support." We find the Superior Court’s
proposal to segregate the amounts to be precatory and without
effect on the "family support" language in the temporary order.
Neither Ms. Ambrose nor Mr. Ambrose sought an apportionment
of the family support payments. Although there were motions
involving attorney's fees and seeking increased family support
payments, they did not address the allocation of family support
payments into separate amounts for child and spousal support.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011