Opinion ID: 1120814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Superior Court Abuse its Discretion by Unfairly Apportioning the Burden of Child Support Between the Two Parties?

Text: Here Pugil raises an equitable argument. He notes that Cogar has equity of $7,500 in her home and that she already has an advanced educational degree, while he has no schooling beyond high school, no assets, and a $45,000 debt to the IRS. He considers it unfair that he should have to pay $447 per month child support. Based on his current income, he considers that an impossible burden. Cogar notes that she, who suffers from a debilitating disease, would have to retrain to work in a less demanding job. She believes that any less child support would require her to finance Pugil's education in violation of the edict of Pattee. 744 P.2d at 662. This court has previously held that Rule 90.3 does not abrogate the general rule that a non-custodial parent is obligated to contribute only a fair share of the amount required to meet the reasonable needs of the parties' minor children. Coats v. Finn, 779 P.2d 775, 776 (Alaska 1989). Therefore, when a party demonstrates that application of the rule's formula will produce and unfair result, common sense dictates that `good cause' exists to depart from the formula. Id. at 777. Nevertheless, in Coats we noted that a party objecting to application of Civil Rule 90.3 must prove good cause by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Our previously holding, that the superior court did not err in resorting to Pugil's earning capacity as the basis for determining his support obligation under Civil Rule 90.3, is dispositive of Pugil's equitable argument. Here Pugil's reduction in income was voluntary and temporary in nature. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we conclude that the superior court properly determined that the equities did not justify placing a greater burden of support on Cogar, the custodial parent.