Opinion ID: 883998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inclusion of income earned by a second iob.

Text: Mark next argues that the District Court misapplied the guidelines by including income which he earns through his second job as a free-lance musician. He points out that the applicable administrative rule provides that: [i]f a person with a subsequent family has income from overtime or a second job, that income is presumed to be for the use of the subsequent family, and is not included in gross income for the purposes of determining support for a prior family. The presumption may be rebutted upon a showing that the additional income is discretionary. Rule 46.30.1508(2), ARM. On the basis of this rule, Mark argues that the income from his second job should be presumed to be for the benefit of his second family. Therefore, he argues, the District Court erred in including the income from his second job when calculating his child support obligation. The cited administrative rule, however, creates only a presumption which may 12 be overcome by evidence that the additional income is discretionary. Rule 46.30.1508(2), ARM. Mark's wife Roxanne is the owner and operator of her own business. She is also Mark's employer and pays his salary. At the hearing, Roxanne testified that her business is very much a going concern; she has moved the business into new offices and hired additional staff to handle its substantial growth. The testimony of both Mark and Roxanne indicated that Roxanne is more than able to provide for her own needs. This evidence rebuts the presumption that the income from Mark's second job is necessary for the support of a second family. Moreover, Mark admitted that he worked a second job as a musician during the time he was married to Tanya. When he met Roxanne, he also was working as a musician. The fact that an individual's second job pre-dates the second marriage may rebut the presumption that the second job serves to provide for a second family. _, Craib, See 880 P.2d at 1385. Mark argues that Tanya had the burden of proving that the income from his second job was discretionary. He argues that the presumption is not adequately rebutted because Tanya herself presented no evidence tending to rebut it. However, more than sufficient evidence was presented to indicate that the second job is not necessary for the support of Mark and Roxanne. The fact that this evidence came from them, instead of Tanya, does not diminish its probative value. 13 However, Mark also testified that 50 to 70% of the gross income from his second job as a musician goes to cover expenses related to the pursuit of that job. This testimony was uncontroverted. Therefore, the District Court erred in attributing all of Mark's gross earnings to him as income without taking his expenses into consideration. Because the presumption regarding income from a second job was adequately rebutted by the evidence presented, the District Court did not err in considering the income Mark receives from his second job when calculating his child support obligation. The District Court erred, however, by not de'ducting Mark's expenses before attributing to him the income from this second job.