Robinson v. Tyson
319 S.C. 360, 461 S.E.2d 397 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may calculate child support based on a parent's potential income if it finds the parent is voluntarily underemployed, and that potential income can be determined by the parent's work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities in the community.
Facts:
- Virginia S. Robinson and William Brooks Tyson, III divorced on March 16, 1984, with Robinson receiving custody of their two children.
- Their settlement agreement stipulated Tyson would pay $300 per month in child support, increasing to $375 per month once he became gainfully employed.
- The agreement also granted Tyson the dependent income tax deduction for their daughter.
- In the ten years following the divorce, Tyson remarried, graduated from law school, passed the South Carolina bar examination, and began practicing law with his father.
- During this ten-year period, Tyson paid a court-reduced amount of $200 per month in child support.
- At the time Robinson initiated the present action, Tyson, despite being a practicing attorney for two years, testified his sole income was $700 per month and that he often borrowed money from his father to meet living expenses.
- Tyson presented no evidence of efforts to find more remunerative employment or of his potential earning capacity.
Procedural Posture:
- Virginia S. Robinson (mother) brought an action against William Brooks Tyson, III (father) in family court, seeking an increase in child support and the dependent income tax deduction for their daughter.
- The family court found the father was voluntarily underemployed and imputed an annual income of $30,000.
- Based on the imputed income, the family court increased the father's child support obligation to $522.06 per month.
- The family court also awarded the dependent tax deduction to the mother and ordered the father to pay $1,500 of her attorney fees.
- The father (appellant) appealed the family court's order to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
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 family court err by imputing potential income to a parent for child support calculation purposes when that parent, a licensed attorney, reports earning significantly less than the prevailing local salary for his profession?
Opinions:
Majority - Cureton, J.
No. A family court does not err by imputing potential income to a parent for child support calculation purposes when that parent is found to be voluntarily underemployed. Under the South Carolina Child Support Guidelines, if a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, the court should calculate support based on the parent's potential income. This determination is based on the parent’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities. Here, Tyson is a licensed attorney with two years of practice experience, yet he claimed an income of only $700 per month. Evidence showed that starting salaries for new attorneys in the area were between $25,000 and $35,000 per year, and even paralegals earned around $18,000. Because Tyson made no effort to demonstrate his true earning potential, the court's decision to impute an income of $30,000 was not an abuse of discretion. A parent's obligation to support their children takes precedence over their choice to pursue charitable or low-paying work.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that a parent's child support obligation is based on their capacity to earn, not merely their actual income. It places an affirmative burden on a parent with high earning potential but low actual earnings to prove that their underemployment is not voluntary. The ruling sends a clear message that parents cannot shirk their financial responsibilities to their children by choosing to work in a less remunerative capacity than their qualifications would allow. Furthermore, it reinforces that unless a settlement agreement explicitly and unambiguously revokes the court's jurisdiction, matters like tax exemptions remain modifiable by the family court.
