Opinion ID: 1111296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The $72,000 Cap

Text: Rule 90.3(c)(2) permits child support to be calculated on income exceeding $72,000 if there is good cause. Michael argues that, in concluding that there was still good cause to deviate from Rule 90.3, Judge Gonzalez simply parroted Judge Andrews's 1992 finding. He also contends that Stephanie failed to satisfy Rule 90.3(c)(2), which places the burden on the nonobligor parent to present evidence which justifies departure from [the] general rule of the $72,000 cap. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3, Commentary VI.D. Where, as here, the obligor parent initially agrees to waive the cap and later asks the court to apply the cap, the obligor has the burden of showing that the Rule 90.3(c)(2) factors, considered in light of the obligor's materially changed circumstances, now warrant application of the cap. This should generally be a difficult burden to meet, given our conclusion that a successful showing of a material change of circumstances for obligors in Michael's position does not entitle them to an automatic reentry into the Rule 90.3 subcap guidelines. Accordingly, Rule 90.3(c)(2) is not a back door through which Michael can return to the minimum requirements of Rule 90.3. Michael has submitted no evidence of circumstances that would justify reimposition of the Rule 90.3(c)(2) cap.