No. 95-549
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1996
IN RE THE MATTER OF THE P ATERNITY
AND CUSTODY OF T.J.H.,
a minor child
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Flathead,
The Honorable Ted 0. Lympus, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Richard DeJana, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondent:
James C. Bartlett, Hash, O'Brien & Bartlett,
Kalispell, Montana
I
v.mp.ui
Submitted on Briefs: June 4, 1996
2 2 13% Decided: August 22, 1996
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The mother of the minor child appeals the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order entered by the Eleventh Judicial
District Court, Flathead County increasing child support from $200
a month to $261 a month. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand for further proceedings.
ISSUES
1. Did the District Court err in imputing wages of $12,000 to
the mother and Was this imputation of income supported by
substantial evidence?
2. Did the District Court properly apply 40.30.1520 (3), ARM,
in considering that the husband was supporting two children from
his present marriage in addition to the child for which the child
support increase was sought?
3. Did the District Court properly implement 46.30.1508 (2),
ARM, in not adding the husband's bonus to his gross income?
BACKGROUND
Upon the father's petition for paternity and custody of the
minor child, on August 10, .1993, the mother and father stipulated
to joint custody, that the mother would be designated as the
primary residential parent and that child support would be
determined within 60 days. In its initial findings of fact,
conclusions of law and order entered May 29, 1985, the District
Court had ordered the father to pay the mother $200 a month for
child support.
2
On June 22, 1995, the mother moved the District Court to
redetermine support for the minor child, which motion the father of
the child opposed. The mother is a part time waitress and she
agreed to impute $8,772 as her income. The mother stated that she
may be able to increase her work hours from 15 to 30 hours a week
to a full 40 hours a week. The father stated that $12,000 should
be imputed to the mother as income because she is able to work full
time. The father is a supervisory employee at Plum Creek where he
earns an annual salary of $44,055. He is also supporting two
children from his present marriage.
The District Court heard the matter on August 30, 1995, and
requested that both parties submit proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. After considering the evidence presented and
the trial memoranda, the District Court modified the existing
support order, taking into consideration that the husband supports
two other children. The court imputed an income of $12,000 to the
mother, and determined that father's bonus is income for his hard
work and therefore is income for the benefit of his second family.
The mother appeals these findings of fact, conclusions of law and
order entered by the District Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's findings of fact in child support
modification cases to determine whether they are clearly erroneous.
In re Marriage of Kovash (1995), 270 Mont. 517, 521, 893 P.2d 860,
862-63. However, we review-a district court's overall decision on
modification of child support awards to determine whether the
3
court's interpretation of the law was correct. Marriaqe of Kovash,
893 P.Zd at 863.
DISCUSSION
1. Did the District Court err in imputing wages of $12,000 to
the mother and was this imputation of income supported by
substantial evidence?
The mother contends that the District Court based its
imputation of income of $12,000 to her on a finding for which there
was not substantial evidence. She therefore argues that the
court's decision was clearly erroneous. On the other hand, the
father argues that the District Court heard evidence that the
mother was capable of doing the same type of work full time and
therefore she was underemployed.
The guideline at issue, 46.30.1513, ARM, states:
DETERMINATION OF IMPUTED INCOME
(1) "Imputed income" means income not actually earned by
a parent, but which may be attributed to the parent
because the parent is voluntarily unemployed, is not
working full-time when full-time work is available, or
the parent is intentionally working below his or her
ability or capacity to earn income.
(2) Income may be imputed according to one of two
methods as appropriate:
(a) Determine employment potential and probable net
earnings level based on the parent's recent work history,
occupational qualifications, and prevailing job
opportunities and earnings level in the community. . .
(c) Whenever income is imputed to an unemployed parent
who is providing in-home care for the child for whom
support is being calculated, and if that parent would be
required~to incur child care expenses if employed at the
imputed level, then the imputed income should be reduced
by the reasonable value of the parent's child care
service.
(d) Income should not be imputed if any of the following
conditions exist:
(i) the reasonable costs of day care for the
parties' dependant children will offset, in
4
whole or in substantial part, the amount of
income the custodial parent can earn.
In the instant case, in her child support guidelines financial
affidavit, the mother stated that she worked 15 to 30 hours a week
at $5.20 an hour. The mother also testified that there was nothing
to prevent her from working another shift or working a 40-hour
week. Without tips, the mother could gross $10,816 working a 40-
hour week at $5.20 an hour. Therefore, the husband suggested
imputing income at $5.77 per hour, $5.20 base wage plus $.S? per
hour for tips, for a 40-hour work week for a total gross of
$12,000. Figuring income from tips and from the base hourly wage,
the mother could work less than a 40-hour week and still make
$12,000.
We hold that the District Court correctly imputed income to
the mother according to the methods set forth in 46.30.1513, ARM.
The court properly determined the mother's employment potential and
probable net earnings level based on her work history, occupational
qualifications, job opportunities, and earnings level in the
community. The mother testified that she anticipated being able to
work 40 hours a week and is not physically prevented from doing so.
The District Court's interpretation and application of 46.30.1513,
ARM, was correct and its findings were within the evidence
presented. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's imputation
of income to the mother.
2. Did the District Court properly apply 40.30.1520 (3), ARM,
in considering that the husband was supporting two children from
5
his present marriage in addition to the child for which the child
support increase was sought?
The mother contends that a court may consider the noncustodial
parent's other natural born and adopted children only when the
custodial parent petitions to increase child support. The mother
further contends that she did not petition for an increase in child
support but rather petitioned for the court to make a
redetermination of child support in which she sought to increase
that support.
Section 46.30.1520, ARM, provides in part:
ALIMONY, MAINTENANCE, PRE-EXISTING CHILD SUPPORT
OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHER CHILDREN
(1) The amount of alimony or spousal maintenance which a
parent is required to pay under a court or administrative
order should be deducted from gross income.
(2) For the support of children who are not subject of
the child support action:
(a) the amount of the order should be deducted from the
parent's gross income if there is a pre-existing support
order .
(3) Use of the deductions provided in this rule are
appropriate at the time of the establishment of a child
support order. In a proceeding to modify an existing
order, the following limitations apply: .
lb) If the custodial parent with a support order
petitions to increase'child support, all other natural
born and adopted children of the non-custodial parent may
be considered in determining whether to increase the
support order.
Here, the District Court correctly applied the guideline. Although
not labeled a petition to increase child support, the mother sought
a child support increase from an existing support order.
Therefore, in determining the increase, the District Court
correctly considered the father's other natural born and adopted
children. The District Court had the discretion to consider the
6
father's present family support obligations. Accordingly, we hold
that the District Court correctly interpreted the law in its
determination to increase the child support.
3. Did the District Court properly implement 46.30.1508(2),
ARM, in not adding the husband's bonus to his gross income?
The mother argues that.the husband's bonuses should have been
included in his gross income and thus figured in the child support
calculations. On the other hand, the husband contends that the
District Court correctly applied 46.30.1508(2), ARM, in excluding
his bonuses from his gross income. 46.30.1508, ARM, states in
part:
DETERMINATION OF GROSS INCOME
(1) In determining for each parent the resources which
can be made available for child support, the following
considerations apply:
(a) "gross income" means income from any source, except
as excluded in subsection cd), and includes but is not
limited to income from salaries, wages, commissions,
bonuses, earnings, profits, dividends, severance pay,
pensions, pre-retirement distributions . . .
(2) In determining a parent's gross income, do not
consider income attributable to subsequent spouses . .
. If a person with a subsequent family has income from
overtime or a second job, that income is presumed to be
for the use of the subsequent family, and is not included
in gross income for the purpose of determining support
for a prior family. The presumption may be rebutted upon
showing that the additional income is discretionary.
The District Court found that the husband's base income was $44,055
a year, but that he could obtain an additional sum based on merit
and extra time spent on the job. The court also found that the
husband was a salaried employee in a supervisory position.
We conclude that because the husband is a salaried employee in
a supervisory position, he works extra hours as any supervisory
employee would and does not earn the additional sum of money "from
overtime or a second job". We are not persuaded that his bonus,
which is strictly performance related, should be deemed a "second
job income" or "overtime" used for the support of his second family
under the guideline. Clearly his bonus is simply that, a bonus,
which should be added to his gross income and considered part of
his gross income. We hold that the District Court erred in its
interpretation of the guideline. Accordingly, we reverse and
remand to the District Court for a determination of child support
consistent with the guideline.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this
Justices
8