Court Opinion

ID: 9513764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:40:16.909896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:01.513823
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 11] The majority correctly notes at ¶ 7:
At the hearing in 2004, neither of the attorneys presented tax returns, profit and loss statements, or any other documentation of Kuleck’s 2002 and 2003 income sufficient “to fully apprise the court” of Kuleck’s gross income for those years. We, therefore, conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing not to impute income to Kuleck under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(9).
[¶ 12] At the hearing, Christian Kuleck was questioned by the lawyer for the Regional Child Support Enforcement Unit:
Q. Have you brought copies of your tax returns with you today, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. For what years have you brought tax returns with you today?
A. For 2002; 2003 right now is estimated until I get my 1099 finalized from all the contractors I’ve done business with.
Q. Who completed that estimated 2003 tax return?
A. I did.
[¶ 13] The obligor brought his tax returns to court. The Regional Child Support lawyer determined this fact and then did not have them marked or made an exhibit in the proceeding.
[¶ 14] The Regional Child Support Enforcement Units are charged with the pub-*374lie interest in seeing that the correct amount of child support is determined under the statutes and guidelines, and then that amount is paid. N.D.C.C. § 14-09-09.27. The units’ lawyers are to be seekers of truth and justice. Their goal must not be to stick an obligor with a higher (or lesser) obligation than is appropriate. Their goal must be to present the courts with all relevant evidence.
[¶ 15] In this case, relevant evidence was brought to court, and the Unit’s lawyer did not have it marked and introduced as evidence. Although in this case the obligor had a lawyer, in many cases, obli-gors are unrepresented. Even when the obligor has a lawyer, that lawyer will often lack the degree of expertise the Unit’s lawyer has in increasingly arcane rules that seem destined to eventually rival the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. The Unit’s lawyer should have had the tax records marked and introduced as evidence.
[¶ 16] Dale V. Sandstrom