Opinion ID: 901900
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: John's Income

Text: [¶ 37.] Conclusions of Law § 20(b) states: John Moore's health is good. He has an excellent education, has advanced degrees and is clearly very well employable at significant sums. However, Denice offered no evidence other than John's 2001 income as a measure of what significant sums he could receive. In 2001, John served as a Division Director in the South Dakota Department of Education, earning approximately $62,500 per year. Since 2001, he has not maintained his credentials or worked in any meaningful capacity outside of the home. [¶ 38.] John is now 60 years old and has been out of his profession for at least seven years. While his 2001 salary may have been relevant to his earning capacity in 2003, modification proceedings are concerned with changes that have occurred since the divorce. Denice presented no evidence that John's 2001 earning capacity is relevant to John's 2008 earning capacity. Therefore, his 2001 income is inadequate to establish his present earning potential. As the moving party, Denice carries the burden of proving John's earning capacity. She has not met this burden. Thus, Conclusion of Law § 30(e) is without a basis in evidence. e. [John's] employability [ ] exists now just as it did at the time of the original Decree of Divorce. [¶ 39.] John argues that he no longer has an earning capacity of $62,500 per year because he is not qualified to work in his prior position. He presented testimony that, due to his long unemployment, returning to educational administration would require at least one year's remedial education and recertification in Texas. Denice does not refute John's need for additional training or certification. [15] [¶ 40.] Furthermore, there is no indication that John's prolonged unemployment was to avoid the alimony obligation by intentionally reducing his income. Olson, 1996 SD 90, ¶ 12, 552 N.W.2d at 400. Given the financial circumstances of John's current marriage, there is no indication that he has intentionally reduced his gross income with the primary goal of avoiding alimony. Id. Since retirement, his income has consistently remained close to zero because he has had no need for other income to support himself or his obligation to Denice.