Opinion ID: 1247879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Overtime and Capital Gains Income

Text: When a court calculates the amount of child support to be paid, the court must consider the Total Monthly Income, defined as the income of both parties derived from all sources. Guidelines, paragraph D. See, also, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (Reissue 1998). Thus, all income from employment must be included in the initial calculation, which then becomes a rebuttable presumption of appropriate support. Dueling v. Dueling, 257 Neb. 862, 601 N.W.2d 516 (1999). In our review of sources of income appropriate for consideration in calculating child support, we have previously determined that regularly earned overtime wages should be included. Stuczynski v. Stuczynski, 238 Neb. 368, 471 N.W.2d 122 (1991). In Stuczynski, we stated that it is appropriate to consider overtime wages in child support calculations if the overtime is a regular part of the employment and the employee can actually expect to earn regularly a certain amount of income for working overtime. 238 Neb. at 374, 471 N.W.2d at 126. We also noted that the level of income should not be based on income that is speculative in nature and over which the employee has little or no control. Id. It is logical to extend the principles stated in Stuczynski to encompass forms of income other than overtime wages. Consequently, if the evidence shows that a party actually earns or can reasonably expect to earn a certain amount of income on a regular basis, it is appropriate to consider such income in calculating child support. Paragraph D of the Guidelines, which requires all sources of income to be included in calculating child support, requires such a rule. Therefore, if the moving party shows that the nonmoving party earns or can reasonably expect to earn a certain amount of income on a regular basis, a rebuttable presumption of including such income arises under the Guidelines. After the moving party has met its burden of proof, the nonmoving party must produce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the application of the Guidelines will result in a fair and equitable child support order before deviation from the Guidelines is appropriate. § 42-364.16; Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035, 607 N.W.2d 517 (2000); Dueling v. Dueling, supra . Thus, if the nonmoving party can show that the included income is speculative in nature and over which the person has little or no control, Stuczynski v. Stuczynski, supra , the presumption of including the income is rebutted and it shall be excluded from the calculation.