Opinion ID: 1155555
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Supporting the Income Determination

Text: Under Civil Rule 90.3, the foundation of any child support award is an accurate determination of each parent's adjusted annual income. Alaska R.Civ.P. 90.3(a)(1). To this end, the rule requires that each parent file a pleading under oath which states the parent's adjusted annual income and the components of this income as provided in subparagraph (a)(1). This statement must be accompanied by documentation verifying the income. Id. at (e) (emphasis added). Although neither the rule itself nor the Commentary to the rule require any particular type of supporting documentation, the Commentary suggests that paystubs, employer statements, or copies of federal tax returns are appropriate. See Commentary VIII. In our view, Civil Rule 90.3 does not authorize child support trials by affidavit. The child support affidavit and documentation requirement of 90.3(e) is a pleading requirement not an evidentiary requirement. Of course, affidavits and supporting documents may be used as evidence by stipulation of the parties or if they are admissible under our Rules of Evidence or if they are offered in evidence and no objection is made to their admission. In Ogard v. Ogard, 808 P.2d 815, 818-19 (Alaska 1991), we discussed the sometimes difficult process of determining adjusted annual income. The underlying premise of our discussion in Ogard is that the goal is to arrive at an income figure reflective of economic reality. Id. at 818-19. As a necessary corollary, trial courts must take all evidence necessary to accurately accomplish this task. Catherine does not claim to have supplied documentation to support her affidavits and her financial declaration. Instead, she relies on the consistency of her sworn statements and her testimony at the divorce trial held before Judge Ripley. William's failure to designate the trial transcript as part of the record makes it impossible for us to review this issue as there is no way to know the quality or quantity of the testimonial evidence presented at trial. [5] In signing the support award, Judge Reese obviously accepted Catherine's version of events. This decision is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Civil Rule 52(a) (A trial court's factual findings shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.). We must be left with a definite and firm conviction on the whole record that the judge made a mistake. Smith v. Smith, 673 P.2d 282, 283 (Alaska 1983) (emphasis added). Without a complete record of the proceedings, we are unable to make this determination. [6]