Opinion ID: 901508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Wagner's Wages

Text: [¶12.] In his last issue, Wagner argues that the referee erred in independently obtaining evidence of Wagner's wages from a source outside the hearing. In the referee's defense, the record reveals that Wagner was completely uncooperative and in fact obstructive in determining his employment and wages at the hearing, as is demonstrated by the following exchange: Referee: State your full name. Wagner: Mike Wagner. Referee: Where do you live? Wagner: I'll plead the fifth. Referee: Well, Mr. Wagner, you can't plead the fifth on your address. There are no criminal proceedings pending in this court, so you're not incriminated in any way by stating your address. So, what's your address? Wagner: None. Referee: You're not living at 809 Burgess Road, Yankton, South Dakota? Wagner: At times, but not always. Referee: Well, okay, for purposes of this hearing it suffices that that's where you're living, and you're single, correct? Wagner: Yeah. Referee: And you're employed, right? Wagner: I'm not answering it. Referee: Well, isn't it true that you're employed by a company called Kohlberg Pioneer, Incorporated? Wagner: Not answering it. Referee: Okay, well, you don't have to answer it. I know that that's the case, Mr. Wagner. Wagner: How do you know that? Referee: Because I checked. Wagner: Why did you check? You're the Referee. Referee: Because I figured you might be uncooperative. And are you willing to tell what your rate of pay is? Wagner: She's been convicted of identity theft. She's taken out credit cards in my name before. I'm not giving you identity information so she can do it again. Referee: Okay. So would you  or then can I interpret that as meaning you're not going to tell me your wages from over at Pioneer? Wagner: Nope. Referee: Okay. For the record, according to the Department of Labor records from the period of  Wagner: I object to this. Referee: Well, your objection is noted, but it's overruled. The record reflects that from the period of October through December of 2004, Mr. Wagner was paid $8084 from Kohlberg Pioneer, Incorporated, which amounts to monthly gross income average of $2695. Thus, because Wagner refused to disclose his wage information, the only information available to the referee was what the referee had obtained from the Department of Labor records. Those records indicated that Wagner's wages averaged $2695 per month. [3] [¶13.] Additionally, while Wagner obstructed all efforts to determine his wage information and whether he was employed, he simultaneously sought a deduction for his contributions to his employer's 401(k) plan. But, in pursuing that deduction, he did not submit verifying pay stubs apparently because they would have revealed his wages. [¶14.] However, in the subsequent appeal to the circuit court, Wagner was granted his request to submit a pay stub to verify his 401(k) contributions. And, on this occasion, Wagner again attempted to hide his wages, this time by submitting a pay stub on which his wage information was whited out. Nevertheless, upon receiving the pay stub, the circuit court viewed it closely and observed that notwithstanding the attempt to obliterate the wage information, the wages were readable through the white out. That pay stub also confirmed the referee's finding. Once the court circuit disclosed that it could verify Wagner's earnings through his own exhibit, Wagner then attempted to withdraw the exhibit, informing the court that it could not receive any new evidence at the hearing. Thus, the circuit court, in its memorandum decision, correctly observed what Wagner was attempting to do: Clearly, Mr. Wagner wants to have it both ways. On the one hand he would like to have some consideration for his retirement contributions, but he doesn't feel the court should have the readily available payroll information in his possession to verify his gross income. Mr. Wagner has proceeded in an uncredible manner. Once Mr. Wagner became aware that the court could verify that his gross earnings were in fact in the amount that the [r]eferee determined from the Department of Labor records, he has determined that he should withdraw the evidence which he offered to the court as part of his objections and he continues to do his best to hinder the [r]eferee and the court from obtaining the truth. The circuit court ultimately affirmed the referee's finding on wages. [¶15.] Now on appeal, Wagner claims that the circuit court's child support order was erroneously based upon information that the referee had obtained from the Department of Labor outside of the hearing process. We do not, however, reach this issue because Wagner has failed to demonstrate prejudice. The party alleging error on appeal must show ... error affirmatively by the record and not only must the error be demonstrated but it must also be shown to be prejudicial error. Tovsland v. Reub, 2004 SD 93, ¶15, 686 NW2d 392, 398 (citing City of Sioux Falls v. Kelley, 513 NW2d 97, 104 (SD 1994)). Error is prejudicial when, in all probability... [i]t produced some effect upon the final result and affected rights of the party assigning it. Novak v. McEldowney, 2002 SD 162 ¶7, 655 NW2d 909, 912 (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [¶16.] Here, Wagner failed to demonstrate prejudice because even if the referee erred in the procedural manner by which he obtained the wage information, Wagner agreed that the referee's substantive wage information was correct. Wagner's agreement occurred when he requested the referee to give him the deduction for his 401(k) retirement plan contributions. When informed that the referee would need to know Wagner's income from employment before the referee could calculate the deduction, Wagner stated [y]ou just stated my income from my job. The referee then explained I know what your income as reported in 2004 by the Department of Labor, and that's the only information I have. I'm giving you an opportunity to give me further information. If you don't want to, then I won't take it. Wagner then replied [i]t's five percent off of what it says there [referring to the Department of Labor wage information]. Thus, Wagner agreed that the Department of Labor information was correct. And, because Wagner agreed that the substantive wage information was correct, the referee's procedural method of obtaining it had no effect on the final result. Therefore, Wagner was not prejudiced by the procedure utilized by the referee. [4]