Opinion ID: 2588705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court erred in calculating rex's income for the purpose of establishing child support.

Text: For the purpose of establishing the value of the business, the trial court found that a non-owner employee to replace Rex would cost the corporation, at a minimum, sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000) per year. The trial court also found that for the purposes of computing child support, an income of $65,000 was attributable to Rex. In analyzing Rex's income for the purpose of determining the amount of support, the trial court relied on the 1998 financial records for the corporation, which indicate that Rex receives $5,417 per month, which totals $65,004. The trial court stated that Rex will have an income of approximately $65,000 per year or more, plus some perks. The trial court found that these perks provide Rex with additional means to discharge personal debt and pay support. The amounts at issue include $2,800 in tip income and $3,600 in rent income, totaling $6,400. Furthermore, the trial court failed to deduct the $1,800 per month spousal maintenance payments Rex was ordered to pay Susan from Rex's income. Section 7 of the Idaho Child Support Guidelines allows for a deduction in gross income for spousal maintenance payments prior to the calculation of child support payments. Upon remand, the trial court needs to recalculate Rex's income to include the additional income received from perks and to deduct spousal support payments for those months at issue.