Opinion ID: 1979745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Income Imputed for Value of Rent Reduction

Text: [¶ 13] We have held that income from an ongoing source includes money received from educational grants for living expenses, see Rich v. Narofsky, 624 A.2d 937, 939 (Me.1993); lump sum severance pay, Walker v. Walker, 2005 ME 21, ¶ 15, 868 A.2d 887, 890; and per diem stipends, Macomber v. Macomber, 2003 ME 1, ¶ 7, 814 A.2d 456, 457-58. [5] However, gross income does not include money received as a gift, where the donor has no legal obligation to continue ongoing payment. See True v. True, 615 A.2d 252, 253 (Me. 1992) (rejecting the argument that the court should have included the value of monthly checks sent by the party's grandmother in the gross income calculation). [¶ 14] Here, the difference between the rent Carolan paid and the rent paid by the previous tenant cannot be considered income from an ongoing source pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 2001(5)(A). Although her monthly rent may be $300 less than the previous tenant's, the $1000 rent is hardly an insubstantial sum. There is no evidence in the record that Carolan's rent payments are significantly less than prevailing rental rates for similar properties in the area. Even if the record included evidence of a significant variance between actual rent paid and prevailing rates in the area, the court would be engaging in considerable speculation if it were to impute income, or loss of income, based on a finding that a particular rent payment was significantly more, or less, than the prevailing, or economic, rental rate that should be assessed for a particular unit. Further, there is no evidence in the record that Carolan's parents have a legal obligation to continue the $1000 per month rental rate. [6] The court erred by imputing the value of the difference between Carolan's rent and the rent of the previous tenant in Carolan's gross income calculation.