Opinion ID: 1794243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Underemployment.

Text: Keith asserts that even if we uphold NDAC 75-02-04.1-07, the trial court properly found that a self-employed obligor cannot be underemployed for purposes of imputing income. In support of the trial court's determination that a self-employed obligor cannot be underemployed, Keith asserts that he is not underemployed because he is continually working and looking for work and working when he has jobs available. We disagree. The guideline definition of underemployment is tied to earning capacity, not to the amount of time the obligor works. Under NDAC 75-02-04.1-07(1)(b), a court can impute income to a self-employed obligor if that obligor's income is significantly less than prevailing amounts earned in the community by persons with similar work history and occupational qualifications. However, we agree with Keith that this modification must be affirmed because the trial court ultimately found, if the guideline did apply, that Jody had failed to present sufficient competent evidence under NDAC 75-02-04.1-07(1)(b) to prove that Keith earned significantly less than prevailing amounts earned by similarly situated persons. Accordingly, sufficient competent evidence of the relevant prevailing amounts earned in the community must be presented to the court for comparison with the obligor's gross income from earnings. Absent adequate evidence, a court cannot find under NDAC 75-02-04.1-07 that an obligor is underemployed, and accordingly cannot impute income. At the modification hearing, Keith testified that he was earning $10.50 per hour when he left Overhead Door in 1992. Keith also responded to these questions from Jody's counsel: Q. So you've got about 13 years in experience or better in the door business. A. Correct. Q. Then you must have some idea of what the prevailing wage is that's paid to door installers in this area, is that not correct? A. There is no rhyme or reason to prevailing wages on this occupation. The reason I say that is it depends on who you're working for. Q. Do you know what Overhead Door is paying their installers, approximately? A. I think the top paid guy is about eleven per hour. Q. Okay. How aboutare you familiar with Production Specialties here in Grand Forks? A. Mm-hmm, yes. Q. Do you know what they are paying their installers? A. The last I heard, their top paid guy was between eight and nine. Q. And when you say top paid, do you know what the lower paid person is, with the bottom of the scale? A. I have no idea. In addition, Jody asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the January 1995 edition of a North Dakota Job Service publication, the NORTH DAKOTA LABOR MARKET ADVISOR, that listed wages for manufacturing jobs in North Dakota at $10.47 per hour, and in the Fargo-Moorhead area at $10.21 per hour. See Blaine L. Nordwall, Child Support Guidelines Amended, THE GAVEL, February/March 1995, at 15 (For most cases, the NORTH DAKOTA LABOR MARKET ADVISOR... provides inexpensive, reliable, and judicially noticeable (under Rule 201, N.D.R.Ev.) evidence of earning potential. Unusual occupations are not listed.). Other than Keith's testimony and the Job Service publication, Jody offered no other evidence of the relevant prevailing wage in Keith's community for those with similar work history and occupational qualifications to his. Jody asserts: Clearly sufficient evidence was presented to the trial court to establish that the prevailing amount earned in this community by a person with similar work history and occupational qualifications as Keith would be at least $10.50 per hour, the amount Keith was earning at the time Keith left Overhead Door. Using Keith's 1994 tax return to compute Keith's present hourly income at $4.99 per hour, Jody argues that Keith is presumptively underemployed under NDAC 75-02-04.1-07(2) because $4.99 per hour is less than six-tenths of $10.50 per hour. The trial court, however, discounted the reliability of Keith's testimony and the particular relevance of the Job Service publication, and specifically found that Jody had provided no relevant nor reliable data to show what persons of [Keith's] work history and job qualifications are earning as a prevailing wage. Our standard of review recognizes that the trial court is in a much better position to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. See Severson v. Hansen, 529 N.W.2d 167, 169 (N.D.1995); Schmidkunz v. Schmidkunz, 529 N.W.2d 857, 859 (N.D.1995). While we are unwilling to hold that an obligor's own testimony is never sufficient to establish the prevailing wage in a community, we do not believe that it was clearly erroneous for the trial court to find that Keith's 1992 wage, and his estimates of what two companies were paying their top door installers in 1995, were insufficient to prove the relevant prevailing wage for Keith's work. Jody asserts that the manufacturing wages shown in the Job Service publication would be probative of the prevailing wages paid in the installation business as manufacturing would require similar aptitude and educational backgrounds, with no college or other specialized degree. At the modification hearing, however, Jody's counsel conceded that the manufacturing industry was different from what [Keith is] doing now. The trial court specifically found that the publication provided no relevant evidence to [Keith's] occupation. While other editions of the monthly NORTH DAKOTA LABOR MARKET ADVISOR might give more relevant wage information for Keith's line of work, we do not believe that it was clear error for the trial court to discount the relevance of the manufacturing wages shown in the January 1995 edition. Although the trial court erroneously concluded that the underemployment guideline was inappropriate and unreasonable, it was not clear error for the trial court to find that Jody had failed to present sufficient reliable and relevant evidence of the prevailing wage in the community. Therefore, even under NDAC 75-02-04.1-07, the trial court properly refused to impute income to Keith. We affirm the modification reducing Keith's child support obligation. NEUMANN, J., concurs. MUEHLEN MARING, J., was not a member of the Court when this case was heard and did not participate in this decision.