Lauderman v. State, Department of Family Services Ex Rel. Jen
232 P.3d 604, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 73, 2010 WY 70 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A district court does not abuse its discretion in modifying child support when it imputes income to a parent who is voluntarily unemployed and calculates a self-employed parent's income based on actual earnings reflective of current economic conditions, even if those conditions are less prosperous than prior years.
Facts:
- Lisa Lauderman (Mother) and Russell Nomura (Father) had one child together in 1999 but were never married.
- Mother has always had custody of the child.
- In 2004, Father’s child support obligation was set at $263.00 per week by a New Jersey court.
- Mother was employed as a welder from May 2007 until her termination in November 2007 due to pregnancy.
- After her termination, Mother became a stay-at-home mother and testified that welding jobs were available in her town which she was physically capable of performing, but she chose not to apply to be with her children.
- Father was a self-employed drywaller operating RNR Drywall, Inc., and later relocated his business from Jackson to Worland.
- Father testified that the construction business had significantly declined, and despite extensive efforts to find work in various areas, including the oil field sector, he was unable to secure employment.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2004, a New Jersey court established Father's child support obligation at $263.00 per week.
- The New Jersey judgment was registered in Wyoming in 2005.
- In November 2007, the Department of Family Services (DFS) filed a Petition for Modification of Child Support in the Wyoming district court (trial court).
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the Petition.
- The district court issued an order reducing Father's child support obligation.
- Mother (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion in modifying child support by imputing income to a mother found voluntarily unemployed and calculating a self-employed father's income using a recent, less prosperous year, thereby reducing his child support obligation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Golden
No, a district court does not abuse its discretion in modifying child support by imputing income to a parent found voluntarily unemployed and calculating a self-employed father's income using a recent, less prosperous year. The district court correctly found Mother voluntarily unemployed, as she testified to the availability of welding jobs she was capable of performing but chose not to pursue to be a stay-at-home mother, consistent with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-303(a)(ii). Her income was reasonably imputed at $16.00 per hour, her prior earning rate, with appropriate consideration for federal income tax credits. The court also properly determined Father's income, finding he was not voluntarily underemployed given his testimony about the severe economic downturn in the construction industry and his inability to find work. It was within the court's discretion to use his 2008 income, which more accurately reflected current economic conditions and future earning capacity, rather than prior, more prosperous years, aligning with Woodward v. Woodward. The exclusion of draws from Father's income was reasonable, as his accountant explained they were unrelated to current business income. Finally, any error in admitting letters corroborating Father's job search was harmless, as the letters merely supported his extensive testimony, and the court indicated it would give them appropriate weight without necessarily relying on them for its decision.
Dissenting - Justice Hill
Yes, the district court abused its discretion because the record is insufficient to justify disturbing the existing child support order, and the court's calculation methods were inconsistent and unfair. The dissent argues that the district court's decision to reduce Father's support from approximately $1,139.67 per month to $650.00 per month, based on widely divergent formulas for calculating the parents' incomes, constitutes an affront to the child support statutes. The dissent points out that the district court imputed income to Mother based on a full-time work week despite her childcare responsibilities for an infant and an older child, making 12-hour welding shifts impractical. Conversely, the court attributed Father a significantly lower income for 2008 due to 'hard times' in the construction industry, despite evidence suggesting he was capable of earning more and potentially used his business to cover living expenses (like transportation and housing) as tax deductions. The dissent asserts that this Court should not permit adequate child support to hinge upon how talented a parent’s accountant is at income tax avoidance, citing Durham v. Durham and Bailey v. Bailey. The dissent concludes that the decision is not 'right' under the circumstances and that the district court's discretion is limited by Wyoming statutes.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of a district court's discretion in modifying child support, particularly concerning income imputation for voluntarily unemployed parents and income determination for self-employed individuals during economic fluctuations. It reinforces the principle that courts may impute income to parents who choose not to work if employment opportunities exist, basing the amount on prior earning capacity. For self-employed parents, the decision highlights the importance of using current income figures that accurately reflect their earning capacity in prevailing market conditions, rather than historical highs. The ruling also underscores the application of the harmless error doctrine in evidentiary matters, where admission of corroborating evidence may not warrant reversal if it did not prejudice the opposing party.
