Schedule and Assignments for Financial Issues in Divorce

Free software for spreadsheets.  (Not an exhaustive list). 

• Open Office, a full suite similar to Microsoft Office and is comparable. 
• Freemind an open source program for building mind maps. 
• Google drive, part of a free Google ID that has word-processing, spreadsheet and more. 
• Apple Pages, Numbers, and Keynote.  Free on iOS and nominal cost through the App Store, allows on-line sharing with apple Id. 

Cases of interest.  Available on Google Scholar, a fantastic resource. 

Child Support Calculations (not including cases on jurisdiction) (In no particular order). 

• Marriage of Paul, 32 Kan.App. 2d 1023 (2004). If the court imputes income to parent, it must also impute daycare costs. Affirmed by Kan. Sup. Ct #91,129 (2005). 
• Marriage of McNeely, 15 Kan.App.2d 762(1991), trial court did not abuse its dissection in ordering payor's obligation to include child care costs when payee was in school, but not employed or looking for employment. 
• Marriage of Brady, 225 Kan. 485 (1979). When support is due for multiple children and one child emancipates, absent other order or motion to modify the support order decreases by the per capita ratio of children emancipating over children remaining.  
• Marriage of Brown, 291 P.3d 55 (Kan. Sup. 2012),  a district court's authority to discharge or vacate child support that was due under an interlocutory order, other than an ex parte order under K.S.A. 60-1607(b), is limited. If a motion for modification has not been filed, the modification operates prospectively only.
• Marriage of Schletzbaum, 15 Kan.App.2d 504 (1991), The Guidelines present a rebuttable presumption as to the proper amount for child support. Deviations from the guidelines it must be under the criteria set out in the guidelines including the best interests of the child.
  
• Marriage of Patterson, (22 Kan. App.2d 522 (1996) The extended formula for higher income families do not create a rebuttable presumption as to the amount of child support to be awarded. 
• Marriage of Brand, 273 Kan. 346 (2002), A case-by-case analysis is required before it can be determined whether to attribute retained profits or distributions of a Subchapter S corporation as income for purposes of calculating support. 
• Marriage of Matthews, 193 P.3d 466 (Kan. App. 2008), Sub chapter S dividends to pay taxes on income distributed to obligee was income, court remanded to determine how much income was distributed for retained earnings attributed to obligor (not income for support) and how much of the distribution went to pay obligor's taxes on income distributed (also income for support). 
• Marriage of Callaghan, 19 Kan. App. 2d 335 (1994), Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits are income as defined under the Guidelines, and not public assistance.  Children's direct benefit checks arising from payor's disability did not satisfy the entire payor's obligation. 
• Marriage of Emerson, 18 Kan. App. 2d 277 (1993) the payments of SSI benefits being received by a minor child may not be claimed as a credit towards the payment of court-ordered child support. SSI payments are an entirely different species of social security payments. They are paid to the disabled person based on that person's disability and individual financial situation. 
  
• Marriage of Beacham & Reed, 19 Kan. App. 2d 271 (1994), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to apply a credit to or eliminate appellant's child support obligation based on the social security survivors' benefits received by his child. Child's father had died and payor had adopted the child. 
• Marriage of Johnson, 24 Kan. App.2d 631(1997), the guidelines require using the Multiple Family Adjustment in determining the level of child support when an increase in support is sought by the custodial parent and the noncustodial parent has children by another relationship who reside with him or her; where a parent is paying for family health insurance that covers individuals from more than one family, the cost of the family coverage should be divided among the number of individuals who are covered by the insurance and that the number should be multiplied by the number of children subject to the child support order.
• Marriage of Schoby, 269 Kan. 114 (2000), The marriage of a minor is not a "terminating event" which automatically allows a payor parent to stop making child support payments for that child.
• Marriage of Mellott, 32 Kan.App. 2d 1031(2004), tuition reimbursement payments to obligor did not reduce his overall living expenses were not income under the Guidelines. 
• Marriage of Lewallen, 21 Kan. App. 2d 73 (1995), depreciation of a farmer's income cannot be summarily disregarded in determining income but must be evaluated to determine if any part of the claimed depreciation may effect the income.
• Marriage of Cranston, 23 Kan. App.2d 350 (1997), in a divided custody situation, the court must use two child support worksheets in computing support. 
• Skillett v. Sierra 30 Kan. App.2d 1041 (2002), the child support guidelines can be used to determine expenses owed for past expenses in a parentage action. 
• In re Marriage of Ormiston, 188 P.3d 32 (Kan. App. 2008), a one time lump sum payment may be considered income if it was compensation for lost income, or were in some manner related to the work performed by Ormiston or to his former or current wages.
• Marriage of Winsky, 208 P.3d 355 (Kan. App. 2009), when one child reached the age of majority obligee moved to modify support, on appeal the court found that the multiple family application should have been used to consider the obligor's subsequently born children. 
• In re Marriage of Harrison, 13 Kan. App.2d 313, 316, 769 P.2d 678 (1989), this court recognized the present case value method and the reserve jurisdiction method as the frequently used methods of valuation for retirement and pension plans. 
  
• Jones v. Jones   45 Kan. App.2d 854, 268 P.3d 494 (2010), The failure to file a DRA and worksheet did not delay effective date of the support.
  
• ​

The Marital Estate

• K.S.A. § 23-2801& K.S.A. § 23-2802.
  
• "Big and little Cray." Marriage of Cray, 254 Kan. 376 (1994), sustaining in part and overruling 18 Kan. App.2d 15 (1993). 

Agreements which May Control.

• Davis v. Miller, 269 Kan. 732, (2000). Approved the choice of law provision in an agreement between a married couple as a prenuptial agreement, and therefore reviewed under that law.  Also holding that Kansas statutes governing premarital agreements do not apply to postmarital agreements, because the parties entering into a postmarital agreement are in a vastly different position than people entering into a premarital agreement. 
  
• Marriage of Traster 48 Kan. App. 2d 356 (2012) (Review granted by Sup. Ct. KS, decision without pub. opinion.),  a post marital agreement is a valid agreement under common law, and differs from a prenuptial agreement and from a separation agreement made in contemplation of divorce.  The court found the standard for assessing the enforceability of post-martial agreement is: (1) each party had an opportunity to obtain separate legal counsel of each party's own choosing; (2) there was fraud or coercion in obtaining the agreement; (3) all material assets were fully disclosed by both parties before the agreement was executed; (4) each spouse knowingly and explicitly agreed in writing to waive the right to a judicial equitable division of assets and all marital rights in the event of a divorce; (5) the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable at the time of execution; and (6) the terms of the agreement are not unconscionable at the time of dissolution. (at 372-373.)
• Regarding a Separation Agreement: In re Marriage of Kirk, 24 Kan. App. 31 (1997), 262 Kan. 961 (1997). the court must scrutinize a separation agreement before approving it. Such scrutiny includes a requirement that the district court review evidence in the record sufficient to support the finding that the separation agreement is valid, just, and equitable. (At 36.) 
• Defining the term "Separation Agreement" In re Marriage of Traster, ___ Kan. _____ 339 P.3d 778 (Dec. 2014). The Court defined the term "separation agreement" to include all agreements entered during marriage that provide for a spouse's property rights in the event of divorce or separation within the meaning of "separation agreement" as that term is used in K.S.A. 60-1610(b)(3) (now K.S.A. § 23-2712, regardless of whether the parties' intend to remain married at the time of execution.
  

Enforcing Oral Separation Agreements. 

• ​Marriage of Takusagawa, 38 Kan. App.2d. 401 (2007), rev. denied. Parties through their counsel put the terms of their agreement on the record, the absence of a writing did not violate the statute of frauds, there was evidence of an agreement in the transcript, KS law allows for oral separation agreements; therefore the agreement was upheld. 
  

Pensions

• In re Marriage of Harrison, 13 Kan. App.2d 313, 316, 769 P.2d 678 (1989), this court recognized the present case value method and the reserve jurisdiction method as the frequently used methods of valuation for retirement and pension plans.