Court Opinion

ID: 9955763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:15:04.37507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:20.623843
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 22, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                            NO. 2023-CA-0785-MR

RUSSELL LEBERECHT                                                  APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE ABIGAIL E. VOELKER, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 15-CI-01054

KARA BISHOP LEBERECHT                                                APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND CALDWELL, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Russell Leberecht appeals from orders of the

Campbell Circuit Court, Family Division, which ordered him to pay Kara

Leberecht $308.52 per month in child support. The trial court believed Appellant

was voluntarily underemployed and imputed income to him. We find no error and

affirm.
                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             The parties were divorced in September of 2017. As part of the

divorce, Appellant was ordered to pay Appellee child support. At the time of the

divorce, Appellant was working as a police officer. On May 3, 2022, Appellant

filed a motion to modify his child support due to a change in his income. He had

retired from the police force, was collecting a full retirement from the police force,

and was also working a lower paying job.

             Prior to his retirement, Appellant was making around $84,000 a year.

After retirement, Appellant was receiving $3,075 a month from his retirement plan

and earning $1,950 a month from his new job. This equals $60,300 a year. The

court believed Appellant was underemployed and should be required to pay child

support based on the pre-retirement income of $84,000 a year, or $7,000 a month.

The court ordered Appellant to pay $308.52 a month in child support. This appeal

follows.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             “As are most other aspects of domestic relations law, the

establishment, modification, and enforcement of child support are prescribed in

their general contours by statute and are largely left, within the statutory

parameters, to the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion is far from

unlimited.” Van Meter v. Smith, 14 S.W.3d 569, 572 (Ky. App. 2000) (citations

                                          -2-
omitted). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was

arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”

Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999).

                                    ANALYSIS

             Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in finding him

voluntarily underemployed and by imputing income to him. Appellant argues that

his retirement from the police force was reasonable due to the inherent dangers of

such a job. Furthermore, Appellant worked for the police force for over twenty

years and was eligible to receive his full retirement package. Finally, he claims

that the work hours of his previous job were long and unpredictable; therefore, he

was not able to parent his children as much as he would have liked.

             Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.212(3)(e) states:

             1. If there is a finding that a parent is voluntarily
             unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be
             calculated based on a determination of potential income,
             except that a finding of voluntary unemployment or
             underemployment and a determination of potential
             income shall not be made for a parent who is
             incarcerated, physically or mentally incapacitated, or is
             caring for a very young child, age three (3) or younger,
             for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility;

             2. A court may find a parent is voluntarily unemployed or
             underemployed without finding that the parent intended
             to avoid or reduce the child support obligation; and

                                         -3-
             3. Imputation of potential income, when applicable, shall
             include consideration of the following circumstances of
             the parents, to the extent known:

             a. Assets and residence;

             b. Employment, earning history, and job skills;

             c. Educational level, literacy, age, health, and criminal
                record that could impair the ability to gain or continue
                employment;

             d. Record of seeking work;

             e. Local labor market, including availability of
                employment for which the parent may be qualified
                and employable;

             f. Prevailing earnings in the local labor market; and

             g. Other relevant background factors, including
                employment barriers[.]

“[I]f the court finds that earnings are reduced as a matter of choice and not for

reasonable cause, the court may attribute income to a parent up to his or her

earning capacity.” Snow v. Snow, 24 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Ky. App. 2000) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

             [T]he court must consider the totality of the
             circumstances in deciding whether to impute income to a
             parent. Indeed, KRS 403.212[] specifies that [p]otential
             income shall be determined based upon employment
             potential and probable earnings level based on the
             obligor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational
             qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and
             earnings levels in the community.

                                         -4-
Polley v. Allen, 132 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Ky. App. 2004) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

             Appellant cites to the case of Bottoms v. Bottoms, No. 2017-CA-

000568-ME, 2018 WL 565819 (Ky. App. Jan. 26, 2018), in support of his

argument. In Bottoms, Shawnta and Rodney Bottoms were married and had three

children. At the time of their divorce, only one child was still a minor. A

dissolution decree was entered on February 17, 2016. A previously entered into

settlement agreement was incorporated into the decree. The agreement stated that

Rodney would pay Shawnta $466 per month in child support. In November of

2016, Rodney moved to modify his child support. During the marriage, Rodney

was employed by the United States military; however, he had recently retired and

his income had decreased from over $8,000 per month to around $2,300 per

month. Shawnta opposed the motion.

             A hearing was held on the motion. Appellant testified that he was

forty-six years old and had retired from the military after twenty-eight years of

service. He testified that he was currently suffering from a multitude of health

problems and was unable to work. Based on Rodney’s testimony, the trial court

held that his child support payment was no longer appropriate and terminated his

child support obligation.

                                         -5-
             On appeal, Shawnta argued that Rodney voluntarily reduced his

income by retiring at forty-six years of age, long before the usual American

retirement age. She argued his retirement was unreasonable and he should be held

to be voluntarily underemployed. The Court of Appeals held that it believed

Rodney’s decision to retire was reasonable. Id. at *3. The Court held that he

retired at an age that the United States Congress deemed appropriate to receive

retirement pay, even though it was before the traditional age of retirement. In

addition, the Court took into consideration Rodney’s physical condition and

concluded that his retirement was reasonable and he was not underemployed. Id.

at *4.

             We believe the case at hand is distinguishable from Bottoms. Here,

there was no evidence that Appellant is physically disabled or unable to find

additional employment. In fact, he is receiving a salary from another job along

with his retirement benefits. We believe this case more resembles the case of

Blicharz v. Hillard, No. 2018-CA-000163-ME, 2018 WL 6721319 (Ky. App. Dec.

21, 2018). In Blicharz, Robert Blicharz moved to modify his child support

payments upon his retirement from the Illinois Transit Authority. At the time of

his retirement, he was forty-five years old, had no physical or medical limitations,

and had no intention to work again. In addition, at the time of his retirement, he

was making $5,914.43 per month. After his retirement, Robert began receiving

                                         -6-
$3,265.88 per month from his pension. He also unilaterally reduced his child

support payments from around $970 a month to around $750 a month.

                Deana Hillard, the mother of the children, then moved to increase

Robert’s child support. After a hearing, the trial court found that Robert was

voluntarily unemployed and imputed to him his full pre-retirement income and set

his child support at over $1,000 per month. On appeal, Robert argued that the trial

court erred in finding him voluntarily unemployed. The Court of Appeals affirmed

and held that Robert’s retirement was not reasonable under the circumstances. The

Court stated:

                Robert was forty-five years old when he took his early
                retirement. He did not suffer from any disabilities or
                physical limitations. At the time, he had two minor
                children – one was sixteen years old and the other was
                fifteen. Robert was otherwise capable of continuing his
                employment until all his children had become
                emancipated. As the trial court suggested at the last
                hearing, even a part-time job with a minimal skill
                requirement would give Robert supplemental income to
                make up the difference between his retirement and
                imputed income for a few remaining years. By Robert’s
                own admission, his current pension income is about the
                same as his take-home pay was before he retired.
                Although the trial court also noted Robert has the right to
                retire, and there is no evidence of bad faith, it is
                uncommon for people with minor children to retire
                because the obligation to support them continues until
                they become emancipated.

Id. at *4.

                                            -7-
             In Bottoms, the parent who retired was physically unable to return to

work and the Court held that his retirement was reasonable. In Blicharz, the parent

who retired could continue to work and his retirement was unreasonable. In the

case at hand, Appellant is capable of employment and has found additional

employment; however, he receives less income overall. There was no evidence

presented to the trial court that Appellant could not continue to be a police officer

or was physically incapable of other work. Appellant is commended for finding

additional employment after his retirement, but the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in concluding he was underemployed based on these circumstances. We

find no error.

             Appellant also argues on appeal that the trial court erred in not making

specific findings of fact. Appellant argues that the court found him to be

underemployed, but did not explain why. Although not specifically stated by

Appellant, it appears as though he is arguing that the trial court did not discuss the

imputation of potential income factors set forth in KRS 403.212(3)(e)3.

             We find that this issue was waived by Appellant because the alleged

lack of findings was not raised in the court below. Kentucky Rules of Civil

Procedure (CR) 52.04 states:

             A final judgment shall not be reversed or remanded
             because of the failure of the trial court to make a finding
             of fact on an issue essential to the judgment unless such
             failure is brought to the attention of the trial court by a

                                          -8-
             written request for a finding on that issue or by a motion
             pursuant to Rule 52.02.

Here, the trial court’s order set forth Appellant’s previous income and the income

he receives post-retirement. The court held that Appellant was underemployed

based on the difference in his pre- and post-retirement income. These findings

would show that that court did consider KRS 403.212(3)(e)3.b. and d. It is unclear

if the court considered the rest of the KRS 403.212(3)(e)3. factors, but that is

because Appellant did not seek additional findings. We conclude that the court’s

findings in this case were sufficient and that Appellant should have moved for

additional findings if he believed they were inadequate.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Jennifer B. Landry                        Rene B. Heinrich
 Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky                    Newport, Kentucky

                                         -9-