Opinion ID: 2672321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stewart’s Income

Text: ¶27. Rosemary argues that the first chancellor entered the divorce judgment based on Stewart’s income being $120,000, when his actual reported income was $150,000. Further, 12 testimony before the second chancellor revealed that Stewart’s income in 2010 was already significantly higher during the first six months of that year based on Stewart working longer hours. ¶28. The evidence of Stewart’s income presented at the August 2010 hearing included Stewart’s 2009 tax return, bank statements for the end of 2009 through the beginning of 2010, and direct deposit sheets for May, June, and July of 2010. The chancellor relied upon the decrease in monthly income reflected on the May, June, and July direct deposit sheets, but failed to consider the year to date income, which reflected an increase in payments during the earlier part of the year. Stewart did testify that his income was greater during the beginning of 2010 due to working more hours. A review of the record shows that Stewart’s income fluctuates from year-to-year. Accordingly, this case requires reversal for a further factual determination regarding whether Stewart’s income had declined so that the court can properly determine the appropriate amount of child support and alimony to be awarded.