Maturo v. Maturo

VERTEFEUILLE, J.,

with whom KATZ and PALMER, Js., join, dissenting in part. I agree with and join part III of the majority opinion. I disagree, however, with the plurality’s conclusion in part I of its opinion.1

In part I of its opinion, the plurality concludes that the trial court applied the wrong standard of law when *144it entered an order requiring the defendant, Frank A. Maturo, to pay 20 percent of his annual bonus as supplemental child support for his two minor children because this order is inconsistent with the applicable statutory criteria and the applicable child support and arrearage…