This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute over child support payments following the divorce of the parties, who share joint legal and physical custody of their two children. The mother owns a business that experienced significant earnings in 1991 due to a federal contract, but she reinvested the income into the business to maintain the contract. The father challenged the trial court's determination of child support, arguing that the mother's corporate earnings should have been included in her gross income, among other issues.
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court ordered the mother to pay $350 per month in child support, commencing from the date of the hearing, and awarded her attorney fees. The court excluded the mother's corporate earnings from her gross income for child support purposes.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that the trial court erred by excluding the mother's corporate earnings from her gross income, failing to commence child support payments retroactively to the date of the divorce, and awarding attorney fees without sufficient findings.
- Respondent (Mother): Contended that reinvesting the corporate earnings was a sound business decision necessary to maintain the federal contract and that the trial court acted within its discretion in determining the child support amount and commencement date. She also defended the award of attorney fees.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding the mother's corporate earnings from her gross income for child support purposes.
- Whether the trial court erred in commencing child support payments from the date of the hearing rather than the date of the divorce.
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees without sufficient findings.
Disposition
- The trial court's exclusion of the mother's corporate earnings from her gross income and the commencement date of child support payments were affirmed.
- The award of attorney fees was reversed and remanded for further findings.
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Minzner C.J. and Black J. concurring):
-
Exclusion of Corporate Earnings: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the mother's corporate earnings from her gross income. The reinvestment of earnings into the business was deemed an ordinary and necessary expense required to maintain the federal contract, and the father's arguments based on tax principles were rejected.
-
Commencement Date of Child Support: The trial court acted within its discretion in commencing child support payments from the date of the hearing. The mother had assumed significant financial obligations for the children during the interim period, and the court's decision was consistent with the settlement agreement and equitable considerations.
-
Attorney Fees: The trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the award of attorney fees. The affidavits submitted by the parties did not address the financial status of the parties or the purpose of the award, as required by precedent. The issue was remanded for further findings.
-
Other Challenges: The father's additional arguments, including the trial court's consideration of the children's past lifestyle and refusal to require the mother to liquidate securities, were dismissed as lacking merit or within the trial court's discretion.