Opinion ID: 889887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the District Court erred in the amount of income it imputed to Perina.

Text: ¶ 19 Perina argues that the District Court erred in its calculation of his income. Specifically, Perina contends that the court erred by using the income averaging method to arrive at its conclusion, because the testimony presented showed that he would not make more than $43,871 and because the income used in the calculation reflected a different work environment than the one he would face in the future. The $62,702 figure settled on by the court, Perina argues, does not take into account the reality of the situationthat he will be unable to earn this income as a part-time employee, absent from work 60 days each year in order to visit S.P.-F. ¶ 20 Frick responds that the $62,702 figure accurately reflects Perina's income. She observes that his average incomeadjusted for the exchange rateactually was $75,242, and thus the lower figure arrived at by the court already takes into account both Perina's status as a part-time rather than full-time employee and the costs associated with visitation. Frick also reiterates other arguments she made before the District Court, such as that Perina's partial ownership of a valuable family farm and rent-free living arrangement should be taken into account. Due to these factors, Frick maintains, Perina has a higher amount of disposable income than others with similar total income. ¶ 21 In determining child support obligations, a district court must follow the Montana Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines) unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that their application is unjust or inappropriate in that particular case. Section 40-4-204(3)(a), MCA; Albrecht v. Albrecht, 2002 MT 227, ¶ 11, 311 Mont. 412, 56 P.3d 339. Admin. R.M. 37.62.108(3) provides that, to the extent possible, income for child support shall be annualized using one of two methods. The first method allows seasonal employment or fluctuating income [to] be averaged over a period sufficient to accurately reflect the parent's earning ability. Admin. R.M. 37.62.108(3)(a). We have recommended consideration of at least two tax years in this determination. Albrecht, ¶ 12. ¶ 22 Perina recognizes that the averaging of prior years' income, as the District Court did in this case, is a valid method of determining income available for child support. He observes, however, that we have emphasized the Guidelines are a starting point, while noting the amount awarded must take the actual situation of the parties into account. In re Tipton, ¶ 15. Citing Graham v. Graham, 2008 MT 435, ¶ 12, 347 Mont. 483, 199 P.3d 211, Perina argues the evidence at trial clearly demonstrated that averaging his annual income from previous years was unjust to him and S.P.-F. He contends the trial court imputed far more income than he could be expected to make, given his inability to secure consistent employment with the mine as a result of his visitation periods, his need to forgo two months' income each year during visitation, and the expected dissimilarity of future years with 2009 despite his status as an as needed employee during that year. He characterizes the trial court's imputed income as assuming a full time income, which he cannot earn. ¶ 23 We cannot agree that the District Court abused its discretion. Perina's work situation and employment history presented a difficult question. The parties presented evidence painting dramatically differing pictures of Perina's financial resources. As we have repeatedly held, a district court sits in the best position to judge the credibility of testimony and proffered evidence, and this Court defers to the district court's resolution of conflicting evidence. In re Marriage of Haberkern, 2004 MT 29, ¶ 34, 319 Mont. 393, 85 P.3d 743. The District Court examined Perina's annual income returns, noted that his 2009 income reflected a similar employment situation to what he can expect in the future (and actually exceeded his income when he was a full-time employee at the mine in 2007, given the higher hourly rates that temporary labor commands), and averaged those annualized incomes as provided for in Admin. R.M. 37.62.108(3)(a). It then proceeded to reduce that amount by over $12,000, presumably to account for Perina's added time away from work to travel to the United States. Perina has not established that these findings were clearly erroneous. Substantial credible evidence supports the court's findings. We affirm the District Court's determination as to the amount of Perina's income available for child support purposes.