Source: https://familylaw.typepad.com/virginiafamilylawappeals/child-support-income-imputationdefinition/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:39:16+00:00

Document:
Living rent-free isn't gift or income for child support purposes: Va. Ct. of App.
"Although “the statute defines gifts as income,” Howe, 30 Va.App. at 214, 516 S.E.2d at 244, allowing someone to live with you is not a “gift.” “A gift is property that is voluntarily transferred to another without compensation.” Goldhamer v. Cohen, 31 Va.App. 728, 736, 525 S.E.2d 599, 603 (2000) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 696 (7th ed.1999)). Here there is no property being transferred."
The Court distinguishes this case from Carmon v. Department of Social Services, 21 Va.App. 749, 467 S.E.2d 815 (1996). In that case, free housing was received in exchange for certain services, and was therefore income.
A personal injury settlement, even if all or partly paid as an annuity instead of a lump sum, is not income, for support purposes, except to the extent that the award or settlement categorized all or part of it as for lost wages, instead of compensation for past injury, the Virginia Court of Appeals says in Otey v. Branch, Va. Ct. App. Record No. 1857–13–2 (9/9/14) - published. The burden of proof is on the other party to show that an award is income-producing, not just a structured payout of funds that were intended to make the recipient whole.
Payor "was awarded lifetime monthly payments of $1,000 as well as four $100,000 lump sum payments that were made in 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012. The circuit court found that Branch's personal injury settlement annuity was excluded from being considered part of her gross income. Relying on this Court's decision in Whitaker v. Colbert, 18 Va.App. 202, 442 S.E.2d 429 (1994), the circuit court reasoned that because the settlement itself was not apportioned as to loss of income or lost wages, an annuity stemming from that settlement was not intended to be included in the statutory definition of gross income.
This Court has previously considered whether personal injury settlements are “income” within the scope of Code § 20–108.2(C). In Whitaker, this Court upheld a circuit court's refusal to treat a father's personal injury settlement as income. 18 Va.App. at 204, 442 S.E.2d at 431. This Court reasoned that because the definition of “gross income” includes “capital gains,” and “capital gains are by their nature profits, not returns of capital,” the General Assembly intended that Code § 20–108.2(C) only “applies to income, not capital recoupment.” Id. at 204–05, 442 S.E.2d at 431 (emphasis added). In the case of personal injury settlements, the evidence must prove that the settlement generates income or profit rather than merely makes the recipient whole from damages incurred. Id. Because the father's settlement was not apportioned as to pain and suffering, permanent injury or disability, lost wages, lost capacity, or future medical needs, “it would be speculative at best as to how to attribute any part of that settlement to prior lost wages as opposed to the other elements of damages.” Id. at 205, 442 S.E.2nd at 431. Consequently, the Whitaker Court held that in that particular case, the evidence did not prove that the settlement generated income for the father and was not mere capital recoupment and therefore the settlement could not be considered in awarding child support obligations.
Oley argues that because Branch receives her personal injury settlement in the form of an annuity, Branch's payments are “income” under subsection (C). The definition of “gross income” contained in Code § 20–108.2(C) specifically includes “income from ․ annuities.” The plain language of the statute requires that in order to be considered when calculating child support obligations, annuities—or any of the other enumerated items in Code § 20–108.2(C)—must generate income to the recipient.
Dispersing Branch's personal injury settlement in the form of an annuity does not change the underlying character of the source—a personal injury settlement. Consequently, the mere fact that Branch receives her personal injury settlement in the form of an annuity does not render our holding in Whitaker inapplicable. This Court's holding in Whitaker does not stand for the proposition that personal injury settlements are categorically excluded from being considered income under subsection (C). Rather Whitaker explains under what circumstances a personal injury settlement may or may not be considered income. In order for a personal injury settlement to be considered income pursuant to Code § 20–108.2(C), the evidence must prove that a defined portion of the settlement generates income to the recipient rather than merely compensates for a past injury.
In this case, like in Whitaker, Branch's settlement is not apportioned as to the nature of the damages that involve the settlement. There is nothing in the record that indicates that the settlement involved compensation for lost wages or lost income—particularly in light of the fact that Branch was a minor at the time of the accident. The circuit court concluded that Branch's settlement payments, even if paid out over many years in the form of an annuity, were capital recoupments intended to make “a badly injured child whole.” The record supports the circuit court's determination that the evidence did not prove that the annuity payments generated any income to Branch. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in excluding Branch's personal injury payments when computing her gross income pursuant to Code § 20–108.2(C) simply because they took the form of an annuity.
College financial aid grant is income for child support calculation - Va. Ct. App.
Otey v. Branch, Va. Ct. App. Record No. 1857–13–2 (9/9/14) - published.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 20
 § 20
 § 20
 § 20
 § 20
 § 20
 v.