Olmstead v. Ziegler
2002 Alas. LEXIS 34, 2002 WL 363384, 42 P.3d 1102 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a parent voluntarily changes careers to a less remunerative field, a court may find the parent to be voluntarily and unreasonably underemployed and calculate child support based on the parent's earning capacity, rather than their actual reduced income, unless the change ultimately benefits the child.
Facts:
- William Olmstead and Elizabeth Ziegler, both attorneys, divorced in 1994 with an agreement for joint custody and no child support payments, though Olmstead agreed to pay for their daughter's daycare and education.
- At the time of the divorce, Olmstead's estimated annual income was $53,000, while Ziegler's was estimated at $25,000.
- In 1996, Olmstead's law partner, Patrick Conheady, dissolved their partnership, claiming Olmstead was unproductive and often played computer games instead of working.
- Following the partnership's dissolution, Olmstead became a solo practitioner, and his annual income fell dramatically, dropping to $13,075 by 1998.
- During the same period, Ziegler's annual income as an attorney increased significantly, reaching $53,761 in 1998.
- In March 1999, Olmstead announced his intention to leave the practice of law to return to school to become a teacher.
Procedural Posture:
- William Olmstead filed a motion in the trial court for an order modifying child support.
- The trial court denied the motion, noting Olmstead had not provided the necessary income verification documents.
- Olmstead filed a motion for reconsideration.
- The trial court granted reconsideration but again denied the motion to modify child support, finding that Olmstead was voluntarily underemployed and that the parties possessed equal earning capacities.
- Olmstead, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
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 parent's decision to leave a legal career to pursue a lower-paying profession constitute voluntary and unreasonable underemployment, justifying a court's refusal to modify a child support order based on the parent's resulting drop in actual income?
Opinions:
Majority - Fabe, Chief Justice.
Yes. A parent's decision to voluntarily change to a less lucrative career can constitute voluntary and unreasonable underemployment, justifying the calculation of child support based on earning capacity rather than actual income. The court determined that Olmstead's reduction in income was a result of his voluntary actions, including his choice to downsize his practice and ultimately change careers. Citing Pattee v. Pattee, the court affirmed the principle that a child and the other parent should not be expected to finance an obligor-parent's career change, especially when the change does not benefit the child. The court found substantial evidence, including testimony from Olmstead's former partner and his own past earnings of over $50,000, to support the conclusion that he had the capacity to earn an income comparable to Ziegler's. Therefore, the trial court did not err in imputing income to Olmstead based on his earning capacity as an experienced attorney.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a child support obligation is tied to a parent's earning potential, not merely their actual income at a given moment. It clarifies that a voluntary career change made for personal satisfaction, which results in a lower income, is a classic example of 'voluntary and unreasonable underemployment.' The ruling empowers trial courts to look beyond a parent's stated income and impute a higher income based on their education, experience, and past earnings. This precedent makes it more difficult for parents to reduce their child support obligations by choosing to pursue less lucrative work without a compelling justification related to the child's best interests.
Unlock the full brief for Olmstead v. Ziegler