Opinion ID: 2617028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Net Incomes

Text: We begin with a review of the district court's calculations of the net incomes for the parties. Contained within this broad issue are the following subissues: whether or not (1) the district court properly imputed in-kind income to the father; (2) only fifty-five percent of the growth income on the retirement account should be attributed to the father; (3) the district court properly used the highest income figure out of the seven-month history that was provided for the father; (4) the social security benefits, which the mother received for the benefit of her two oldest daughters, should be included in her net income; and (5) sporadic income should be excluded to reduce the mother's net income.
The district court declared that, although the father was paying only $300 per month to live at Community Alternatives of Casper, the fair market value of room and board at Community Alternatives of Casper was $550 per month. The district court concluded, therefore, that the father was receiving in-kind income of $250 per month. We do not agree that this amount should be included in the father's net income calculation because the record does not support its inclusion and because the district court improperly speculated in arriving at this amount. The mother contends that the district court could have taken judicial notice of this amount by using the Community Alternatives of Casper contract, which she had submitted as an offer of proof but which had been rejected as an exhibit. The mother maintains that the contract established that Community Alternatives of Casper incurred more expense in housing the father than the amount he was paying for room and board. The offer of proof was merely that and did not qualify as evidence. We further reject the mother's contention that the district court could have taken judicial notice by using the Community Alternatives of Casper contract because the information in the contract was not generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the [district] court nor was it capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. W.R.E. 201(b). See also Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 343 (Wyo.1986). The $250 that the district court imputed to the father cannot, therefore, be included as part of his net income.
The district court also included an amount in the father's net income calculation that represented the entire growth income on his retirement account. Because the district court divided this retirement account subsequent to the divorce so that the father retained fifty-five percent of the account and the mother received forty-five percent, it could not include the entire growth income as part of the father's net income. Only fifty-five percent of the growth income could be attributed to the father; the remaining forty-five percent of the growth income must be included in the mother's net income calculation.
In determining the father's monthly earnings, the district court used the father's current earnings of $520 per week instead of using the summarization of the father's earnings from the first of the year to find his average monthly earnings. The father worked in construction, and his monthly income, therefore, fluctuated. We agree that, given the nature of the father's employment, his earnings must be determined by averaging his income over several months. See Triggs v. Triggs, 920 P.2d 653, 659 (Wyo. 1996). We do not agree, however, that the amounts from the early part of the year, when the father was not permanently employed, can be included. If these amounts were included, the figure would be artificially low. The father's monthly net earnings should, therefore, be calculated by averaging his monthly paychecks from the time in March of 1997 when he became regularly employed.
The district court calculated the mother's monthly net income in two ways because it was uncertain as to whether or not the social security benefits, which the mother received on behalf of her two oldest daughters, should be considered as being a part of her monthly net income. In one calculation, the district court included the social security benefits, and, in the other calculation, the district court excluded these payments. The social security benefits belonged to the two girls and, therefore, were not income for the mother. Accordingly, they cannot be included as a part of the mother's monthly net income.
The district court reduced the mother's net monthly income by $125 even though her financial affidavit indicated that her monthly net income included this amount. The mother testified that she periodically attended workshops and that the two pay stubs attached to her financial affidavit did not accurately represent her current income because they included extra pay she had received for participating in workshops. It appears to us that the mother's testimony supported the district court's finding that her financial affidavit was overstated due to the sporadic income being included. The mother received these payments only two or three times a year, and the amount and frequency of the payments were variable. We, accordingly, agree with the district court's decision to reduce the mother's monthly net income by the amount of these sporadic payments.
In calculating the father's monthly net earnings, we averaged the net regular pay that he received over a five-month period beginning with the March 14, 1997, paycheck. When the correct variables are inserted into the net income formulas for each parent, the presumptive support obligations are as follows: INCOME FATHER MOTHER Monthly Earnings From Employment $1,643.94 $1,824.00 Retirement Plan Growth Income 165.00 135.00 _________ _________ Total Income $1,808.94 $1,959.00 Presumptive Presumptive Combined % Owed Support Support Net Income Net Income By Each Amount Obligation Father $1,808.94 $3,767.94 48% $1,311.83 $629.68 Mother $1,959.00 $3,767.94 52% $1,311.83 $682.15 WYO. STAT. § 20-6-304(a)(iv) (1997). The proper calculation of the net income formulas demonstrates that the father's presumptive support obligation would be $629.68 per month, which would be $300.32 less than his current monthly obligation of $930. In order for the father to establish that his support obligation would change by at least twenty percent, he had to prove that his support amount would be changed by at least $186. WYO. STAT. § 20-6-306(a) (1997). The decrease of $300.32 is more than a twenty percent change from the amount in the existing child support order; therefore, we are required to consider there to be a change of circumstances sufficient to justify the modification of the support order. Id. See also Sharpe v. Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210, 214 (Wyo. 1995).