Opinion ID: 2379906
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severance Pay as Gross Income

Text: [¶ 9] We turn, then, to the computation of the father's income for the purpose of addressing the motion to amend child support. [4] The issue presented is whether the lump sum severance payment that the father received from his former employer should be included in his gross income for the purposes of child support calculations. [¶ 10] The statutory definition of gross income reads in pertinent part: Gross income includes income from an ongoing source, including, but not limited to, salaries, wages, commissions, royalties, bonuses, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust funds, annuities, capital gains, social security benefits, disability insurance benefits, prizes, workers' compensation benefits, spousal support actually received ..., and education grants, fellowships or subsidies that are available for personal living expenses. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2001(5)(A) (emphasis added). [5] Although the statute expressly includes the term severance pay as an example of gross income for the purposes of child support calculations, it introduces the example as income that is derived from an ongoing source. Thus, the father contends that because his employment was terminated and the source from which this payment derived could not be considered ongoing, the District Court was correct to exclude the severance payment from his gross income. [¶ 11] We review the interpretation of a statute directly for errors of law. Town of Ogunquit v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2001 ME 47, ¶ 7, 767 A.2d 291, 293. When construing a statute, we first seek to give effect to the legislative intent by examining the plain meaning of the statutory language. Charlton v. Town of Oxford, 2001 ME 104, ¶ 10, 774 A.2d 366, 371. When the statutory language is ambiguous, we look beyond its plain meaning and examine other extrinsic factors, such as the statute's history, to ascertain legislative intent. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Monty, 1998 ME 11, ¶ 4, 704 A.2d 401, 403. We also examine the whole statutory scheme of which the section at issue forms a part so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved. Davis v. Scott Paper Co., 507 A.2d 581, 583 (Me.1986). [¶ 12] Reading section 2001(5) in its full context reveals that gross income for the purposes of child support calculations generally includes all payments received by a parent in the scope of employment. The list, which is not exhaustive, includes salaries, wages, commissions, royalties, dividends, severance pay, and pensions, among other things. These payments are all associated with compensation for employment. The father in the present case received the severance payment as a lump sum from his employer at the termination of his employment. That severance payment is therefore also in the nature of income related to employment. [¶ 13] Thus, the severance payment at issue would certainly fall within the definition of gross income but for the introductory phrase indicating that the payment must be from an ongoing source. We have previously held that a lump sum payment that derives from a lawsuit settlement is not from an ongoing source, because the source does not persist but rather vanishes upon satisfaction of the settlement agreement. Monty, 1998 ME 11, ¶ 6, 704 A.2d at 403. There, the payments at issue were unrelated to employment compensation, and a single payment was made from a single source. In contrast, the severance payment here generated from what had been an ongoing source  the father's employer. The fact that it was the last payment from the employer should make no difference. If it did, the last payment of any wages from an employer would have to be excluded from income because it did not represent a payment that would be followed by another and thus would not be from an ongoing source. We must reject that restrictive interpretation of ongoing source. [¶ 14] Moreover, an examination of the history of the statute reveals no legislative intent to distinguish lump sum severance pay from a severance package that is disbursed over time. Although severance pay is made upon the termination of employment, no matter what form it takes it is payment derived from what was an ongoing source  employment compensation. [¶ 15] Accordingly, we conclude that the Legislature intended to include severance pay, regardless of how the payments are made, in the definition of gross income for the purposes of child support calculations pursuant to 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2001(5)(A). [¶ 16] Because the determination of the father's income may affect other aspects of the judgment, we vacate the order and remand for further consideration of all aspects of the child support calculations that were before the court. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.