Opinion ID: 1773127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gambling Winnings

Text: Gene first claims in his appeal that gambling winnings are not income for childsupport purposes under the definition in Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 10. The policy reason for this is simple, he claimsgambling income is so uncertain and noncontinuous that it cannot be considered as a dependable basis for establishing child support. He contends that there is a dearth of caselaw on the issue and urges that we be guided by the definition in Administrative Order No. 10, which, he asserts, limits what constitutes income to certain defined categories. Our standard of review for an appeal from a child-support order has been set out in a recent opinion: We review chancery cases de novo on the record, and we will not reverse a finding of fact by the chancery court unless it is clearly erroneous. Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Myrick v. Myrick, 339 Ark. 1, 2 S.W.3d 60 (1999). In reviewing a chancery court's findings, we give due deference to that court's superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony. Hunt v. Hunt, 341 Ark. 173, [15 S.W.3d 334]. As a rule, when the amount of child support is at issue, we will not reverse the chancellor absent an abuse of discretion. Scroggins v. Scroggins, 302 Ark. 362, 790 S.W.2d 157 (1990). However, a chancellor's conclusion of law is given no deference on appeal. City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park Inc., 323 Ark. 332, 916 S.W.2d 95 (1996). Kelly v. Kelly, 341 Ark. 596, 599, 19 S.W.3d 1, 3 (2000). In order to address whether Gene's gambling winnings should be included as income for purposes of determining his child-support obligation, this court must first look to what constitutes income for child-support purposes. Our Family Law Code defines the term income as follows: (4)(A) Income means any periodic form of payment due to an individual, regardless of the source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, workers' compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program, and interest.Ark.Code Ann. § 9-14-201(4)(A) (Supp. 2001). Subsection (4)(B) of that section permits this court to expand the definition from time to time in the Guidelines for Child Support Enforcement[.] Ark.Code Ann. § 9-14-201(4)(B) (Supp.2001). That is precisely what this court did with Administrative Order No. 10. In the Administrative Order, we set forth the following definition of income: Income means any form of payment, periodic or otherwise, due to an individual, regardless of source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, worker's compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program, and interest less proper deductions for: 1. Federal and state income tax; 2. Withholding for Social Security (FICA), Medicare, and railroad retirement; 3. Medical insurance paid for dependant children, and 4. Presently paid support for other dependents by Court order. Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court, No. 10, § II (emphasis added). [1] In construing this definition, this court has said that the definition of income included in the Administrative Order is intentionally broad and designed to encompass the widest range of sources for the support of minor children. Davis v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 341 Ark. 349, 358, 20 S.W.3d 273, 278 (2000). Additional authority for this proposition can be found in the Administrative Order's section dealing with deviation considerations. In that section, the Order sets forth the relevant factors to be considered by the court in determining the appropriate amount of child support. Those factors include: 12. Other income or assets available to support the child from whatever source. Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court, No. 10, § V. Our court of appeals has had occasion to interpret subsection a.12 on at least two occasions and to include as income certain funds not specifically listed in the definition of income. See Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Longnecker, 67 Ark.App. 215, 997 S.W.2d 445 (1999) (money received from part-time work included as income for child-support purposes); Belue v. Belue, 38 Ark.App. 81, 828 S.W.2d 855 (1992) (VA benefits included as income for childsupport calculations). See also County of Contra Costa v. Lemon, 205 Cal.App.3d 683, 252 Cal.Rptr. 455 (1988) (court interpreted income from whatever source derived to include lottery winnings though funds were not listed as a specific category of income). There is no question then that both this court and our court of appeals have interpreted the term income broadly for purposes of arriving at proper child support. Moreover, we are influenced by the fact that the Internal Revenue Code includes gambling winnings as part of a person's gross income for federal income tax purposes. See 26 U.S.C.A. § 61; see also Lyszkowski v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 2751 (1995); Hall v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 44 T.C.M. (CCH) 256 (1982); Rev. Rul. 83-130, 1983-2 C.B. 148. Gene urges this court to follow the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which means that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another. See Black's Law Dictionary 602 (7th ed.1999). He raises this maxim in support of his argument that the items listed in the definition of income in the Administrative Order are exclusive of all others. We disagree. As already discussed in this opinion, the policy of this state is to interpret income broadly for the benefit of the child. Subsection a.12 of Section V of the Administrative Order referring to other income from whatever source confirms that. We decline to limit income only to those items listed in the definition but rather consider the list of income sources as illustrative rather than exhaustive or exclusive. See, e.g., Masterson v. Stambuck, 321 Ark. 391, 902 S.W.2d 803 (1995); County of Contra Costa v. Lemon, supra . We hold that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in including gambling winnings as income for purposes of determining child support under the Administrative Order.