Opinion ID: 1946195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Child Support Deviation Based on Father's Voluntary Income Reduction

Text: [¶22.] Mother argues that Father voluntarily reduced his income by engaging in direct competition with his former employer. Father contends that he did not voluntarily decrease his income by competing with his former employer during a 90-day period after his termination. The circuit court agreed with Father and did not deviate from the child support schedule. Mother argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by not granting the deviation. [¶23.] Shortly after Father gained custody of the oldest child, Father's employer terminated him and offered to provide him with 90 days of severance pay plus a $25,000 bonus so long as Father signed a contract not to compete with the employer. Father chose, instead, to set up his own construction business in competition with his previous employer. Because Father failed to sign the agreement not to compete, he did not receive his base compensation, benefits, or any additional compensation for the 90-day period. [¶24.] Mother concedes that Father's termination was not his fault. His former employer simply made a business decision to go a different direction with the company that did not include employment for Father. Father did, however, make the voluntary decision to forgo the former employer's non-compete contract during the 90-day period following his employment. Because Father did not sign the non-compete contract and began to compete with his former employer, the former employer did not pay Father after September 28, 2007. [¶25.] The referee determined that Father would make $70,000 per year following his termination and applied this income as of September 1, 2007. [10] Mother argues that Father's voluntary decision to compete with his previous employer equates to a voluntary decrease in income under SDCL 25-7-6.10(6). The circuit court disagreed, determining that Father's termination was not voluntary and his decision to compete with the employer was not a voluntary act to decrease his income. In denying the deviation for Father's voluntary reduction in income the circuit judge determined: I can't find that there is any evidence to really support a voluntary reduction of [Father's] income. I think it was, he was at the mercy of his employer. They had the power and the control to call the shots. They called it and he came out on the short end. Based on the evidence, Mother has failed to show that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her request for deviation. [¶26.] We reverse on issue one, affirm on issue two and remand to the circuit court to enter an order in conformity with this opinion. [¶27.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, and ZINTER, Justices, concur.