AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 the modification of child support obligations. The Mother sought an increase in child support payments from the Father due to his increased income. The Father contested the increase and raised issues regarding the calculation of his income, the imputation of income to the Mother, and the inclusion of certain expenses and obligations in the child support determination. The Mother cross-appealed on the treatment of the Father’s tax-exempt income. (paras 1-2)

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The court adopted most of the recommendations of a court-appointed special master, increasing the Father’s child support obligation from $3,000 to $4,904 per month and requiring him to continue paying private school tuition. The court declined to impute additional income to the Mother and rejected the special master’s recommendation to adjust the Father’s tax-exempt income for child support purposes. (paras 1, 24)

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the increase in child support was unjustified, the court erred in calculating his income using outdated figures, and it improperly rejected deductions for business expenses. He also challenged the continuation of private school tuition payments, the refusal to allow substitution of a retirement account for life insurance, and the use of Schedule A instead of Schedule B for child support calculations. Additionally, he claimed federal preemption under the Copyright Act regarding income from his copyrighted works. (paras 2-20)
• Mother: Contended that the Father’s increased income justified the child support modification. She argued against imputing additional income to her and supported the inclusion of the Father’s tax-exempt income in the child support calculation. She cross-appealed, asserting that the court should have used a higher hypothetical income figure for the Father’s tax-exempt income. (paras 3-26)

Legal Issues

• Was the increase in child support justified based on a substantial change in circumstances? (paras 2-3)
• Did the court err in refusing to impute additional income to the Mother? (paras 3-6)
• Was the calculation of the Father’s income, including the use of outdated dividend figures, proper? (paras 9-10)
• Should the Father’s business expenses have been deducted from his income? (paras 11-15)
• Was the continuation of private school tuition payments appropriate? (paras 16-17)
• Did the court err in rejecting the substitution of a retirement account for life insurance? (para 17)
• Was the use of Schedule A instead of Schedule B for child support calculations proper? (paras 18-19)
• Does the Federal Copyright Act preempt the inclusion of income from copyrighted works in child support calculations? (paras 20-23)
• Should the Father’s tax-exempt income have been adjusted to reflect hypothetical pretax income? (paras 24-27)

Disposition

• The court affirmed the increase in child support and the refusal to impute additional income to the Mother. (paras 2-6)
• The court reversed the use of outdated dividend figures and the rejection of the Father’s business expense deductions, remanding for recalculations. (paras 10, 15)
• The court affirmed the continuation of private school tuition payments and the use of Schedule A for child support calculations. (paras 16, 18-19)
• The court reversed the rejection of the Father’s proposal to substitute a retirement account for life insurance, remanding for reconsideration. (para 17)
• The court rejected the Father’s federal preemption argument under the Copyright Act. (paras 20-23)
• The court affirmed the decision not to adjust the Father’s tax-exempt income for hypothetical pretax income. (paras 24-27)

Reasons

Per Bosson J. (Hartz and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• Child Support Increase: The court found a substantial change in circumstances due to the Father’s increased income, justifying the modification. The increase exceeded the statutory 20% threshold for presuming a change in circumstances. (paras 2-3)
• Imputation of Income to Mother: The court upheld the refusal to impute additional income to the Mother, finding that she acted in good faith in her employment and financial decisions. The evidence supported the conclusion that she was not underemployed. (paras 3-6)
• Father’s Income Calculation: The use of outdated 1995 dividend figures was deemed erroneous, as the statute requires the use of current income data. The court remanded for recalculation based on 1996 figures. (paras 9-10)
• Business Expense Deductions: The court held that the Father’s fixed overhead expenses were ordinary and necessary for his business, even during a period of rest from writing. The rejection of these deductions was reversed and remanded for further consideration. (paras 11-15)
• Private School Tuition: The court found no abuse of discretion in requiring the Father to continue paying private school tuition, as it was consistent with the statutory guidelines and prior agreements. (paras 16-17)
• Retirement Account Substitution: The court reversed the rejection of the Father’s proposal to substitute a retirement account for life insurance, finding no valid rationale for the decision. The matter was remanded for reconsideration. (para 17)
• Schedule A vs. Schedule B: The court upheld the use of Schedule A, finding that the Father failed to meet the statutory 35% threshold for shared responsibility under Schedule B. (paras 18-19)
• Copyright Act Preemption: The court rejected the Father’s preemption argument, holding that the inclusion of income from copyrighted works for child support purposes did not conflict with federal law. The court relied on analogous case law and statutory interpretation. (paras 20-23)
• Tax-Exempt Income Adjustment: The court declined to adjust the Father’s tax-exempt income to reflect hypothetical pretax income, citing the absence of statutory intent and the need for administrative simplicity. (paras 24-27)