concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part">Kapsner, Justice,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[¶ 63] I concur in Parts II, III, and IV of the majority opinion. I respectfully dissent from Part V. I would affirm the district court’s determination of child support.

*185[¶ 64] Paragraph 23 of the majority opinion recites the findings upon which the district court established child support. The key findings are that the defendant is unemployed, it is necessary to impute income based upon 90% of his greatest income for a 12-month period in the last 24 months, and 90% of his greatest gross annual income during that period of time is $80,412.00, resulting in net monthly income for child support purposes of $4,922.00. Although the district court did not specifically refer to N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1—07(3)(c), those findings meet the requirements of that subsection. I do not believe we have ever stated that the district court must refer to the specific guideline being applied, so long as the guidelines are properly applied.

[¶ 65] The State introduced evidence that Robert Carroll had received income of $89,350.14 in 2014, and therefore the district court had the “reliable evidence” which N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(3)(c) requires. Ninety percent of this number is $80,412.00. This number is the starting point of the child support calculation introduced at the hearing by the State as Exhibit 2. That exhibit also indicates after the required guideline deductions, the net monthly income is $4,922.00, resulting in a child support amount of $1,387.00. There is no confusion about how the district court determined the amount of child support based upon the evidence it was presented.

[¶ 66] Robert Carroll tries to argue that the district court improperly “extrapolated” income to determine child support. It did not. As shown by the State’s Exhibit 1, the approximately $89,350.00 income was received in three quarters of 2014. If the district court had extrapolated income, it would have divided $89,350.00 by nine months ($9,927.00) and multiplied this number by 12 to figure an annual extrapolated income of $119,124.00. It would have reduced this by 90% to use $107,211.00 as the starting point to compute child support. Rather, it gave Robert Carroll the benefit of computing child support based on nine months of income. He, failing to appear and give proper information, is not in a position to complain about this benefit. As hinted in the majority opinion, the result is the same as the guidelines provide under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(9)(c) for an obligor who fails to furnish rehable information concerning the obli-gor’s gross income from earnings.

[¶ 67] For these reasons, it is clear from this record the district court followed the guidelines and properly calculated child support based upon the evidence it heard, and I would affirm.

[¶ 68] Carol Ronning Kapsner

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress