Opinion ID: 2637440
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Trial Court Erred in Using Marvin's Predicted Income to Determine Interim Child Support for Seth.

Text: Marvin next argues that, assuming the trial court's award of interim support for Seth was proper, the superior court should have used Marvin's actual rather than predicted income. In making retrospective rather than prospective child support awards actual income rather than earlier predictions as to income should be used. [11] When the court awarded retrospective interim support for Seth, the question of prospective child support both for Ethan and Seth was left unresolved. Marvin had filed an updated child support affidavit on October 13, 1997, showing his adjusted yearly income to be $20,814.84. Although the trial court mentioned this affidavit, it neither accepted nor rejected it, leaving the issue as to Marvin's earnings for future resolution. Ultimately, after oral argument and a review of Marvin's actual earnings, the trial court determined that Marvin's adjusted income was $20,115.48 and awarded on-going child support based on this figure, beginning August 1, 1997. Because retrospective support should be based on actual rather than predicted income, and actual income remained for resolution as of the entry of the October 21, 1997, findings and conclusions, we believe that the court erred in failing to defer the question as to the amount of interim support owed for Seth until Marvin's actual income was determined. [12]