Opinion ID: 2514245
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Michael made a prima facie showing of voluntary underemployment.

Text: Michael argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing to establish whether Georgia was underemployed. Michael's right to a hearing is governed by well-settled precedent. Because conflicting affidavits and exhibits seldom provide a meaningful basis for resolving factual disputes, [8] we have recognized that evidentiary hearings on motions to modify child support will generally be needed when the pleadings raise genuine issues of material fact. [9] In the present case, then, the critical question is whether Michael raised genuine issues of material fact concerning his claim that Georgia was voluntarily underemployed. Michael's underemployment claim arose from the parties' 1997 agreement to modify their existing custody agreement; the new custody agreement, in turn, necessitated a reexamination of the parties' child support obligations. Under the prior arrangement, Georgia had primary physical custody of all three children. Upon implementing the new agreement, however, Michael assumed primary physical custody of Jason and shared custody of Joshua and Laura. The change left Georgia with half-time custody of two children instead of full-time custody of three children, thereby triggering Rule 90.3(b)'s provisions governing shared and divided custody situations and making it necessary to establish Georgia's child support obligation. At the time of the parties' agreement for modification of custody, the commentary to Rule 90.3 provided that annual income could be imputed to a parent for purposes of calculating child support in cases of voluntary underemployment: The court may calculate child support based on a determination of the potential income of a parent who voluntarily is unemployed or underemployed. A determination of potential income may not be made for a parent who is physically or mentally incapacitated, or who is caring for a child under two years of age to whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility. Potential income will be based upon the parent's work history, qualifications and job opportunities. The court also may impute potential income for non-income or low income producing assets. [10] Relying on this provision, Michael argued that the court should impute income to Georgia because she was no longer a full-time custodian. Michael pointed out that she now owed the children a duty of support while they were in his custody. He contended that she therefore could not reasonably refuse to seek gainful employment. In support of this argument, Michael offered evidence indicating that Georgia had previously held a job, that she was capable of obtaining gainful employment, and that she was actually working without pay in Coyne's business. In response, Georgia minimized the amount of time she worked for Coyne's business and expressed doubts about her ability to find a job outside the home. But she acknowledged that she had not looked for another job and insisted that she had a right to continue living as if she still had full-time custody of the children: When the children were born, Michael and I jointly agreed that I should be a full-time mom. I intend to continue to make myself available for the children at all times. Considering Michael's proffered evidence of Georgia's ability to find gainful employment and Georgia's stated intent to continue being a full-time mom despite having only one-third of the total custody time, we find that Michael raised a material dispute on the issue of Georgia's voluntary underemployment. This showing would normally suffice to require an evidentiary hearing.