Opinion ID: 2600709
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Annie's Motion To Modify Child Support

Text: Annie argues that the master incorrectly imposed the burden of proof on her to prove she was not unreasonably underemployed. She asserts that the burden of showing a prima facie case of unreasonable underemployment should have rested with John. Annie claims that John failed to meet his prima facie burden because the only evidence of unreasonable underemployment he presented was testimony he elicited from Annie about her work history, education, and why she changed jobs. She posits that an initial showing of voluntary and unreasonable underemployment should require more. We rule de novo in determining how the law applies to undisputed facts. [3] Annie relies on a footnote in Beaudoin v. Beaudoin in which we stated that the court should assume that the obligor's earnings accurately reflect reasonable efforts to maintain employment at earning capacity when an obligor moves the court to modify his or her child support payments. [4] We noted that the court should depart from this assumption only to the extent [the custodial parent] makes out a prima facie showing of voluntary and unreasonable underemployment. [5] Beaudoin does not define a prima facie case of voluntary and unreasonable underemployment. [6] We held there that the father made out a prima facie case of unreasonable underemployment simply by showing that the mother opted not to seek gainful employment even though she shared only one-third of the total responsibility for the children's physical custody. [7] In accord with what we said in Beaudoin, John presented more than adequate evidence to make out a prima facie case of voluntary and unreasonable underemployment. Annie concedes that she voluntarily left her job at St. Mary's. John therefore only had to show that it was unreasonable for her to change jobs. We conclude that John met his prima facie burden by showing that Annie voluntarily left St. Mary's to take a job paying approximately half what she earned before. John's prima facie case is only bolstered by evidence that Annie's reduced income may be temporary, that her work history and qualifications indicate she could be making substantially more money, and that she had significant liquid assets at her disposal from which to satisfy her child support obligation. Annie also contends that the master improperly put the burden on her to show that she traveled eighty percent of the time while working for St. Mary's, and to show that she sought, but could not find, a better paying job or a job that enabled her to use her master's degree in education. But all the evidence concerning the reasonableness of Annie's employment change was either in her control or far more available to her given that she no longer resides in Alaska; the relevant evidence would have been available to her through her own records or exclusively available to her through her employer's records. Because John met his initial burden, Annie was obliged to present evidence to rebut his prima facie case. Annie failed to do so. Once the primary custodian has made out a prima facie case of voluntary and unreasonable underemployment or unemployment the burden of persuasion shifts to the obligor to rebut that claim. The master did not err in requiring Annie to present rebuttal evidence to show that she was not unreasonably underemployed. [8]
Annie argues that the master did not consider the totality of the circumstances or make adequate findings to support his conclusion that she was unreasonably underemployed. The master found Annie was voluntarily and unreasonably underemployed in light of her past employment, income history, and educational background. He also found that Annie ha[d] not proven that it was necessary for her to quit [her] St. Mary's job because she had not substantiated the assertion that she traveled between fifty-five and eighty percent of the time. Given that John had custody of the children for most of the year, the master found that it was unreasonable for Annie to leave her St. Mary's job to take an approximately forty-five percent pay cut at IPA. [9] He therefore recommended that the superior court deny Annie's motion. We independently review whether the trial court has applied the correct legal standard in determining a child support obligation. [10] We review child support modifications for abuse of discretion. [11] We will find an abuse of discretion if we are left with the definite and firm conviction on the whole record that a mistake has been made. [12] The trial court's determination of an obligor's imputed income is a factual finding that we review for clear error. [13] The trial court may use an obligor's potential income when calculating a child support award if the court finds the obligor is voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed or underemployed. [14] It is appropriate to impute income to an obligor if a parent's current situation and earnings reflect a(1) voluntary and (2) unreasonable decision to earn less than the parent is capable of earning. [15] Annie admits that she voluntarily left her job at St. Mary's College, where she earned $52,000 per year. We therefore must decide only whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding that it was unreasonable for Annie to take a job that paid half as much. The court must consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether an obligor is unreasonably underemployed. [16] These include such factors as whether the obligor's reduced income is temporary, [17] whether the change is the result of economic factors or of purely personal choices, [18] the children's needs, and the parents' needs and financial abilities. [19] Because the master's findings encompass the totality of the relevant circumstances, we conclude that it was not error to impute income based on them. The master's findings reflect that he considered the parties' custody arrangement, as well as Annie's work history, prior income, qualifications, education, and reasons for leaving her job. These are relevant factors in determining whether an obligor is currently unreasonably underemployed. [20] Although the master did not make findings on several issues potentially relevant to the totality of the circumstances, such as the temporary nature of her reduced income or that she had substantial assets from which to satisfy her obligation in the meantime, we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that the superior court erred. Our independent review of the record supports the conclusion that Annie was voluntarily and unreasonably underemployed, and that it was therefore appropriate to impute income to her. The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Annie's motion to reduce her child support payments. Finally, it was not clearly erroneous for the court to impute income of $52,000 to Annie. Potential income will be based on the parent's work history, qualifications, and job opportunities. [21] Given Annie's extensive sales experience and savings, it was not error to impute income to Annie at the salary she recently earned at St. Mary's.