Opinion ID: 1161005
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Income from All Sources

Text: Easton argues that the court failed to consider two sources of income in determining Robinson's new child support obligations: the dividends he receives from the Ounalaska Corporation and the proceeds from the sale of his property in Unalaska. Easton is correct that CSED's income calculations, on which the superior court apparently relied, did not include these two sources of income.
Robinson contends that his dividends should not be considered income because they go directly to CSED to pay off his child support arrears. We disagree. Rule 90.3 provides that income from all sources should be considered in determining an obligor's ability to pay. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1). The rule then provides a list of items that can be deducted or excluded from gross income. Money used to pay child support arrears for the children whose support is currently at issue does not appear on this list. Significantly, however, the rule does exempt from income child support and alimony payments arising from prior relationships ... [that] are actually paid. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This provision demonstrates that the rule is intended to exempt from the obligor's income only child support payments for other children. [2] Furthermore, an interpretation of Rule 90.3 that would permit parents in Robinson's situation to deduct from their income money used to pay child support arrears is incompatible with the underlying objective of the rule. The primary purpose of Rule 90.3 is to ensure that child support orders are adequate to meet the needs of children, subject to the ability of the parents to pay. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3, commentary I.B. If an obligor were permitted to deduct money used to pay arrears, then it would be in his or her interest to accumulate arrears in order to decrease future child support payments. Clearly, creating such an incentive would jeopardize the rule's goal of providing for the needs of children.
Robinson also argues that the proceeds from the sale of his property should not be considered income because they are being used to pay his child support arrears. We reject his argument for the reasons outlined above. On remand, the superior court should consider both the Ounalaska Corporation dividends and the proceeds from the property sale as income. [3]