Rutledge v. Barrett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court “could not reduce amounts that accrued prior to the filing of the father’s 1988 cross-petition”
• recognizing that, under section 36-5-101(a)(5), modification of a child support order may be made only after the commencement of an action for modification and the giving of notice
• finding that where circumstances justify the original total amount of support for the remaining minor children, a trial court is not obligated to apply pro ration to a past award
• prior to its amendment, section 36-5-101 permitted child support order to be modified retroactively if the obligor parent could prove he or she was unable to pay the full amount through no fault of his or her own

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).