December 29 2008
DA 08-0054
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2008 MT 442N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
BENNY QUINONES,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
CATHERINE QUINONES,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADR-1999-326
Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Martin J. Eveland; Eveland Law Office, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Catherine Quinones, (self-represented); Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 1, 2008
Decided: December 29, 2008
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in
this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 Benny Quinones (“Benny”) appeals from the District Court’s December 31, 2007,
child support order. We affirm.
¶3 In its child support order, the District Court determined that Benny owes Catherine
Quinones (“Catherine”) $324 per month. The figure was based on “Catherine’s annual
income of $10,761 (including earned income credit) and Benny’s annual income of
$46,654.” The District Court declined to impute full-time employment income to
Catherine “because she takes care of the children after school and when school is not in
session, saving the parties daycare expenses.”
¶4 Benny appeals from the District Court’s decision not to impute full-time income to
Catherine. He contends that the court should have imputed income to her because she
has a license as a professional manufacturing engineer and is voluntarily underemployed.
He contends that the court’s order failed to demonstrate that Catherine fell within any of
the exceptions for imputation of income prescribed by Admin. R. M. 37.62.106(9)
(2008). For example, according to Benny, there was no finding that Catherine was
2
disabled, that a legal dependent required her presence, or that there was no suitable work.
Catherine contends that her situation is a result of the parties’ choice to live in Montana
and raise their children in this state. Catherine also contends that after the parties were
married in Colorado, she had a job opportunity which she had to decline so she could
move to Montana with Benny. Further, after she received her Professional Engineering
license, she was offered a job in another state. Since Benny refused to move from
Montana, she declined the job. Consequently, Catherine has never worked using her
license and there are limited opportunities for a profession in manufacturing engineering
in Helena, Montana.
¶5 The administrative guidelines provide that income should not be imputed when the
court “makes a finding that other circumstances exist which make the imputation of
income inequitable.” Admin. R. M. 37.62.106(9). Based upon the history of the parties,
we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impute
full-time income to Catherine in light of their agreed upon child care arrangements.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
3