Funny Fake Ad Colbert Show Whitaker Insurance Plan Clip 92017

junho 17, 2022 Postar um comentário

WHITAKER v. COLBERT Court of Appeals of Virginia. Apr 5, 1994
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ^TM
(AI Recommendations)

18 Va. App. 202 442 S.E.2d 429

Important Paras

(1) Code Sec. 20-108.2 applies to income, not to capital recoupment. This conclusion is supported by the definition of income set forth in Code Sec. 20-108.2(C). Although that definition includes "capital gains," capital gains are by their nature profits, not returns of capital. Colbert's personal injury claim included an income element, lost earnings. It included also capital elements, compensation for medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, disability, injury, and pain and suffering. The evidence before the trial court did not elucidate the merits of any of these claims. Plainly, the settlement was for an unquantified fraction of the total amount claimed. The trial court held, "The settlement was not apportioned as to amounts attributable to pain and suffering, permanent injury or disability, lost wages, lost earning capacity or future medicals and the court finds that it would be speculative at best as to how to attribute any part of that settlement to prior lost wages as opposed to the other elements of damages." The trial court thus held that the evidence did not prove that the settlement generated income to Colbert. The evidence supports that determination.Go to
After Colbert began receiving social security disability benefits and settled his law suit, the parties petitioned the trial court for retroactive modification of Colbert's child support obligation, as permitted by the October 15, 1990 decree. Ms. Whitaker sought to have the $30,000 net amount received by Colbert in settlement of his personal injury suit included in the computation of his income for purposes of fixing his child support obligation. Colbert sought to have his child support obligation reduced, taking into account his continuing disability, tying the determination of his income to his social security benefits, and giving him credit for social security benefits received by the children.Go to
The benefits to Colbert's children derived from his employment. They offset his incapacity to provide for his children through continued employment. He enjoys a credit against his support obligation for the amount of those benefits. Thus, those benefits are, in effect, income to him and fall within the definition of his income under Code Sec. 20-108.2(C).Go to
(1) Domestic Relations — Child Support — Support Guidelines. — Code Sec. 20-108.2 applies to income, not to capital recoupment; although the definition of income includes capital gains, capital gains are by their nature profits, not returns of capital.Go to
Mother appealed the judgment of the circuit court refusing to treat father's personal injury settlement in calculating child support and in crediting father's Social Security disability benefits, paid to his children, in calculating father's on-going support obligation (Circuit Court of Page County, Perry W. Sarver, Judge).Go to
(3) The social security benefits received by the children are not gratuities, but are entitlements earned by Colbert through his earlier employment. They are a substitute for his lost ability to provide for the children through the fruits of future employment. They are much the same as benefits under a disability insurance policy. The social security tax deducted from Colbert's paychecks and the required contributions by his employer were like premiums, purchasing benefits in the event of his disability. The children's benefits inure to them not through their own entitlement but because of their status as dependents of a disabled parent. The benefits accrue to them to offset Colbert's diminished ability to provide for them normally. He is entitled to credit for that alternative provision of ongoing support.Go to
The trial court properly imputed as income to Colbert the social security benefits received by his children and credited his child support obligation by the amount of those benefits.Go to
(2) Domestic Relations — Child Support — Standard. — Social Security benefits received are income within the meaning of Code Sec. 20-108.2.Go to
Laurel (Colbert) Whitaker contends that the trial court erred (1) by refusing to treat as income Dennis Franklin Colbert's personal injury settlement in calculating child support, and (2) by applying social security benefits, paid to the children as a result of Colbert's disability, as a credit in calculating his ongoing child support obligation. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.Go to
The trial court held that the personal injury settlement was not income within the scope of Code Sec. 20-108.2(C). It did not include that amount in its calculation of Colbert's income. In calculating Colbert's income, for the purpose of computing his child support obligation under Code Sec. 20-108.2, it imputed to Colbert the social security benefit received by the children as his dependents. Adding that amount to the benefit received by him, it calculated his child support obligation under the guidelines based on that total income. It then credited that obligation by the amount of the benefit received by the children. This appeal addresses, not the arithmetic, but the principles employed by the trial court in those computations.Go to

Deleon Thavou

Funny Fake Ad Colbert Show Whitaker Insurance Plan Clip 92017

Postar um comentário for "Funny Fake Ad Colbert Show Whitaker Insurance Plan Clip 92017"