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

December 29 2008
2

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
3

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