Opinion ID: 1690481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: linda's income

Text: The referee found that Trevor's transfer to his father's custody was a material change that required Linda to contribute to Trevor's support. When custody of children is split between parents, ( see NDAC 75-02-04.1-01(8), at note 3), the amount of child support is computed for each parent, and the lesser amount is subtracted from the greater. NDAC 75-02-04.1-03. [4] Gordon argues that the referee improperly computed the amount of Linda's child support to offset his obligation. We agree. The guidelines' definition of income is broad. NDAC 75-02-04.1-01(2), at note 3. Income includes more than earnings from employment; it includes the cash value of in-kind income received on a regular basis. Id. In-kind income means the receipt of any valuable right, property or property interest, other than money or money's worth, including, but not limited to, forgiveness of debt (other than through bankruptcy), use of property, including living quarters at no charge or less than customary charge, and the use of consumable property at no charge or less than the customary charge. NDAC 75-02-04.1-01(3). The guidelines direct that [t]he value of in-kind income contributed by the spouse to the obligor must be considered. NDAC 75-02-04.1-08, at note 2. Linda received in-kind income contributed by her spouse. Linda is married to a pediatrician who supports the family. Linda testified that she has not worked outside the home since 1983 for several reasons, although she has a bachelor's degree and she is a registered nurse. David's position as a pediatrician keeps her from seeking employment as a nurse in Fargo, Linda says, because his clinic has anti-nepotism regulations, and other unwritten rules in the city restrict hiring the spouse of a physician. Also, Linda says that she has chosen not to be employed outside the home because her two children, Khara and Trevor, have needed extra care for their Attention Deficit Disorder. [5] Linda testified, however, that this disorder is less of a problem as the children get older because they have learned coping mechanisms ... [and] they then have control over their lives. Now, Trevor is no longer in her household. Linda sees herself primarily as a homemaker and mother and contribut[ing] in the home in order to raise [the] child at home. The referee found that Linda Clutter contributes significantly as a mother and homemaker to the household in which she resides. Though Linda has provided Trevor a home [in Fargo] to be raised in, the administrative guidelines say that Linda is obligated to pay support for Trevor because Trevor now lives with his father. [6] The Clutter's income for 1990 was $163,263, all earned by Linda's spouse. Some of this, used by Linda, became in-kind income to Linda. The referee computed Linda's income at $593 monthly from some household expenses of the Clutter family that totaled only $2,966 monthly. [7] The referee divided this amount by the number of people in the household, five, to arrive at $593 per month as Linda's income. Applying the schedule at NDAC 75-02-04.1-10 to this $593, the referee derived Linda's child support of $102 monthly. Thus, out of a monthly family income of $13,605 ($163,263 annually divided by twelve months), the referee found that Linda owed only $102 monthly to support one child. In contrast, out of Gordon's monthly income of $6,975, the referee found that he owed $1,400 monthly to support two children. Emphasizing this great disparity, Gordon argues that Linda's income should be the $10,000 amount actually spent monthly by the entire Clutter household. We reject such an extensive attribution of in-kind income. On the other hand, contributed living expenses to be counted as in-kind income include more than the cost of housing and transportation that the referee seemed to concentrate on. Anything else that  allows the obligor to avoid ordinary living expenses  should be counted. NDAC 75-02-04.1-08, at note 2. (Our emphasis). We conclude that the referee omitted other ordinary living expenses by the Clutter household that benefitted Linda. The referee read the guidelines too narrowly. The amount used by the referee does not fairly reflect Linda's ordinary living expenses. Linda's affidavit, about support of the children in her custody listed her family's monthly expenses at nearly $5,200.00, considerably more than the amount listed by the referee. Linda testified that there are other things that [she] spend[s] money on that are not reflected in [the] affidavit, and that the [check] registers... aren't very accurate in that there was lots of times they were out of cash[,] out of pocket things that weren't listed that I have no way of um, accounting for. Also, the $2,966 amount used by the referee did not reflect what Linda spent on other items, including clothing, furniture, entertainment, church and charities, YMCA memberships, vacations, and life and disability insurance, that were also not shown in her affidavit. We conclude that neither the $2,966 listed by the referee, nor the $5,200 listed in Linda's affidavit, adequately represents the consumable property and ordinary living expenses that benefitted the Clutter household. On remand, the referee must more appropriately follow the guidelines in computing ordinary living expenses in the Clutter household. After determining monthly living expenses for Linda's family, the referee divided that figure, $2,966, by the number of people in her household to attribute a one-fifth share to Linda. The reasoning seems to be to apportion to Linda only her fair share of family expenditures. Indeed, Linda argues here that only expenditures of immediate benefit to her should be used. Benefit to Linda is a reasonable reference, but we rule that it should include more than her immediate benefit. Linda's household includes herself and her husband, David, their child, Alexis, and her two children with Gordon, Abrey and Khara. Linda and David share responsibility for the care of Alexis. Linda is primarily responsible for the care of Abrey and Khara. Dividing the monthly household expenditures by five assumes either that David Clutter, alone, supports all three children, or that the children carry their own expenses, or that Gordon's contribution fully supports the care of Abrey and Khara. None of these assumptions is consistent with the guidelines. A more appropriate factor would recognize that some of the consumable property and ordinary living expenses in the household benefit Linda's children and, to some extent, though not necessarily proportionately, are in-kind income to Linda, beyond what is taken care of by Gordon's support payments for Abrey and Khara. [8] We conclude that the referee's computation of Linda's in-kind income, and the referee's resulting determination of Linda's child support obligation, were clearly erroneous. On remand, the referee must fairly determine Linda's in-kind share of the Clutter household's expenditures.