Opinion ID: 853784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Imputed Income from Family Support

Text: Glass lives alone in his deceased father's house which is now owned in a trust whose beneficiaries are Glass and his siblings. His sister is the trustee. The house sits on a lake and Glass's siblings use the lake and the house at their discretion. Glass argues that the trial court's finding that he received $18,000 in imputed income by living in his family home without paying rent is not supported by the evidence. The Guidelines state that regular and continuing payments made by a family member, subsequent spouse, roommate or live-in friend that reduce the parent's costs for rent, utilities, or groceries, should be the basis for imputing income. Child Supp. G. 3(A) Commentary 2(e). Glass' rent-free living arrangement provides him with a lower living cost that presumably frees up money for the support of his children and was a proper basis for the trial court to impute income. The trial court's apparent implicit finding [1] that Glass received $1,500 per month of imputed income as a result of this living arrangement seems reasonable based on the description of the house. Although there appears to be no evidence from either party of the actual value of this house or the cost of renting a similar home, the general description of the house provided by Glass and Oeder is sufficient that the finding cannot be said to be clearly erroneous. Glass also argues that Oeder has imputed income from her spouse's contributions to their household. As with Glass' living arrangement, the contribution Oeder's spouse makes to their home presumably frees up money for the support of her children and is a proper fact that may be considered in calculating her income. See Gilpin v. Gilpin, 664 N.E.2d 766, 767 (Ind. Ct.App.1996). Once again, however, the trial court found no imputed income from Oeder's spouse after balancing these factors and others including the reduced mortgage payment generated by Oeder's capital infusion to purchase the house. We cannot say that the sum of these findings was clearly erroneous.