Opinion ID: 2598759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Imputed Income[1]

Text: Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 governs child support and requires awards of support to be calculated as an amount equal to the adjusted income of the non-custodial parent, [2] multiplied by certain factors. Rule 90.3(a)(1) broadly defines adjusted gross income to include the parent's total income from all sources, less certain specified deductions. Under Rule 90.3(a)(4), the court may impute potential income to a parent the court determines is voluntarily and unreasonably ... unemployed or underemployed and also may impute potential income for non-income or low income producing assets. Here, the court found that Laybourn had consistently underreported his income and was engaged in an ongoing scheme of concealing assets and earnings. The court estimated his annual adjusted gross income capacity to be at least $72,000. Those findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. Laybourn nonetheless asserts that the court was required to provide a strict accounting of its methods for determining this income amount. In particular, Laybourn takes issue with several categories of expenses that he claims the superior court must have improperly considered in computing his income. But Laybourn's argument misconceives the basis of the court's finding that his adjusted annual income totaled at least $72,000: the court was not calculating his actual income; instead, it was imputing income based on an estimate of Laybourn's earning capacity because he had made it impossible to calculate his actual income accurately. Laybourn's situation is thus functionally equivalent to voluntary underemployment. Having failed to give the court any accurate basis on which to compute his actual earnings, Laybourn cannot be heard to complain that its estimate based on his earning capacity is insufficiently precise. [3] Because the superior court did not clearly err in finding that Laybourn's total adjusted earning capacity from all sources easily exceeded $72,000, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying his child support obligation. [4]