Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions

Touch N' Go
, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.


You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Shanigan v. Shanigan (1/6/2017) sp-7144

Shanigan v. Shanigan (1/6/2017) sp-7144

          Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

          Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  


          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  



                     THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ALASKA  

ELISSA  SHANIGAN,                                            )  

                                                             )          Supreme  Court  No.  S-15956  

                               Appellant,                    )  


                                                             )          Superior Court No. 3AN-11-05578 CI  

                    v.	 	                                    )  


                                                                        O P I N I O N  


TERRENCE SHANIGAN,                                           )  


                                                                       No. 7144 - January 6, 2017  

                               Appellee.	 	                  )





                    Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  


                    Judicial District, Anchorage, Patrick J. McKay, Judge.  


                    Appearances:             Elissa      Przywojski,           pro     se,     Anchorage,  


                    Appellant.  No appearance by Appellee Terrence Shanigan.  


                    Before:  Stowers,  Chief  Justice,  Winfree,  Maassen,  and  


                    Bolger, Justices.  


                    MAASSEN, Justice.  




                    A mother appeals from an order reducing the amount of child support the  


father was required to pay.  The mother argues that the superior court relied on incorrect  


income calculations from the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) and that it erred  


in finding a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction in child  


support.  She also argues that the court should have required the father to  submit an  


income affidavit, and that its failure to do so improperly shifted to her the burden of  

----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

 proving   the   father's   income.     We   conclude   that   CSSD's   income   calculations   were  

 incorrect, that it was error for the court to adopt them, and that the father should have                                                                                                                 

 been required to submit an income affidavit.                                                                                          We therefore reverse the superior court's                                                               

 order modifying child support.                                                                

 II.                 FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS                       

                                         Elissa Przywojski (formerly Shanigan) and Terrence Shanigan divorced in                                                                                                                                              

 January 2012, and Elissa was granted sole legal and primary physical custody of their                                                                                                   

 two minor children.                                           The 2012 child support order required Terrence to pay monthly                                                                                                              

 child support of $1,932.92.                      

                                         In June 2014 Terrence asked CSSD to review his support obligation.                                                                                                                                              He  

 gave CSSD copies of his 2013 federal tax return and the six most recent pay stubs from                                                                                                                                                              

 his   employment   with   the   State.     CSSD   recalculated   his   support   obligation   and  

 determined that it could be reduced by $315.92 a month.                                                                                                                    Because this was a reduction                             

 of 16.3%, Terrence was presumed to have had a material change in circumstances as                                                                                                                                                                           

 defined   by   Alaska   Civil   Rule   90.3(h),   which   would   justify   a   modification  of   his  

                                 1  Accordingly, in January 2015 CSSD asked the superior court to modify the  


 existing child support order to reflect its new calculations.  


                                         Elissa opposed the motion to modify, arguing that CSSD's calculations  


 were wrong in several respects.  According to Elissa, a correct calculation would result  


 in only a 10.7% decrease from the original child support order, too small a change to  


justify a reduction in Terrence's support obligation.  Elissa also challenged Terrence's  


 failure to submit a sworn income affidavit in support of CSSD's request.  Finally, she  


                     1                   Civil Rule 90.3(h)(1) provides that "[a] final child support award may be  


 modified upon a showing of a material change of circumstances[,] . . . [which] will be  


 presumed if support as calculated under this rule is more than 15 percent greater or less  


 than the outstanding support order."  


                                                                                                                              -2-                                                                                                                    7144

----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

 claimed that CSSD erred in assuming that Terrence had no income from a consulting                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 business he had recently launched.                                                                                                                       

                                                           Along with her opposition Elissa filed an affidavit from her mother, a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 certified public accountant, who had done her own calculations based on the income                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 information Terrence had given CSSD. This competing analysis showed that Terrence's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 monthly support obligation should be reduced to $1,725.24 per month, a reduction of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 $207.68 instead of the $315.92 proposed by CSSD.  Because her figures showed only   

 a 10.7% reduction in Terrence's obligation, Elissa argued that a material change in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 circumstances could not be presumed under Rule 90.3(h) and no modification was                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       


                                                           The superior court granted CSSD's requested modification in February                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 2015, decreasingTerrence'schildsupport obligation                                                                                                                                                                               to theCSSD-recommended amount                                                                                           

 of $1,617 per month.                                                                          The court issued no separate written findings, but it noted on its                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 order that it had reviewed Elissa's opposition and found "no supporting evidence" for   

 her claims.                                      Elissa filed successive motions for reconsideration, which the court denied.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             


                                                           Elissa filed this appeal.                                                                              Terrence did not participate.                                                                                                       

 III.                         STANDARD OF REVIEW  


                                                           "We use the clearly erroneous standard when reviewing factual findings,  


 including findings regarding a party's income . . . ."3                                                                                                                                                                                               "Factual findings 'are clearly  


                              2                            Terrence did not file a brief, and we denied his later request to participate                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 in oral argument.                                                            See  Alaska R. App. P. 212(c)(10) ("When the appellee's brief is not                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

 filed as required, appellee will not be heard at oral argument except on consent of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 appellant, or by request of the court.").                                                                                                                                  

                              3                             Wilhour v. Wilhour, 308 P.3d 884, 887 (Alaska 2013).  


                                                                                                                                                                                       -3-                                                                                                                                                                          7144

----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

  erroneous when, "after reviewing the record as a whole, [we are] left with a definite and                                                                 


  firm conviction that a mistake has been made." ' "                                              



              A.	 	       It Was Error To Grant The Requested Modification Of Terrence's  


                          Child Support Obligation Because He Failed To Show A Material  


                          Change In His Income.  


                           1.	 	       Child support is calculated under Rule 90.3.  


                          Rule 90.3 prescribes how child support is calculated.  The starting point is  



  the non-custodial parent's "total income fromall sources."                                                   Subtracted from this income  


  figure are five "mandatory deductions" set out in Rule 90.3(a)(1)(A):  


                          (i)	 	       federal, state, and local income tax,  


                          (ii)	 	      Social Security tax or the equivalent contribution to an  


                                       alternate plan established by a public employer, and  


                                       self-employment tax,  


                          (iii)	 	 Medicare tax,  


                          (iv)	 	  mandatory union dues, [and]  


                          (v)	 	       mandatory contributions to  a retirement  or pension  



Rule 90.3(a)(1)(B) also allows a deduction for "voluntary contributions to a retirement  


or  pension  plan  or  account  .  .  .  except  that  the  total  amount  of  these  voluntary  


contributions plus any mandatory contributions . . . may not exceed 7.5% of the parent's  


gross wages." After the court has made these deductions (and several others not relevant  


here), what remains is the non-custodial parent's "adjusted annual income."  

              4           Sharpe v. Sharpe                  , 366 P.3d 66, 68-69 (Alaska 2016) (modification in                                                

  original) (quoting                Bennett v. Bennett                , 6 P.3d 724, 726 (Alaska 2000)).                

              5           Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1).  


                                                                               -4-	                                                                      7144

----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                          Once this amount has been determined, Rule 90.3(a)(2) gives the formula  

for calculating the child support obligation of the non-custodial parent. Because Terrence  


and Elissa have two minor children, the amount of the obligation is the adjusted annual  



income multiplied by .27.   


                          To trigger a modification in child support under Rule 90.3(h)(1), the party  


petitioning for modification must demonstrate that there has been "a material change of  


circumstances," which is presumed "if support as calculated under [the] rule is more than  


 15 percent greater or less than the outstanding support order."  


                          2.          Terrence's gross income for 2014 was $108,729.72.  


                           Because Terrence submitted his request for modification before the end of  


2014, CSSD extrapolated his gross annual income through the end of the year using his  


most recent income information.   As of his latest pay stub, dated October 28, 2014,  


Terrence's "total gross" income from his State employment was $88,295.60.   Elissa  


correctly  extrapolates  that  amount  to  an  annual  income  of  $105,954.72.7                                                                       In  2014  


Terrence also received a $1,884 Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) and $891 in native  


corporation dividends.  These three amounts added together equal $108,729.72 in gross  


income.  As Elissa notes, CSSD's calculation of Terrence's gross income, $109,269.72,  


was $540 too high because it again added Terrence's non-taxable cell phone allowance,  


already included as income on his pay stub.8  


              6            Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(2)(B).                                

              7            $88,295.60 (total gross as of October 2014) divided by 20 (total number of                                                               


  pay periods to date) then multiplied by 24 (total number of pay periods in 2014) equals  


              8            See ALASKA  DEP 'T OF                      ADMIN.,  How to Read Your Payroll Stub and Yearly                                     


  W2 Earnings Statement                          1 (last                                               


                                                                                  -5-                                                                         7144

----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                                                           3.	 	                         CSSD   incorrectly   calculated   Terrence's   Rule   90.3   adjusted  

                                                                                          annual income by overstating his federal income and Medicare   

                                                                                         tax obligations.                                                           

                                                            The following mandatory deductions should have been subtracted from                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Terrence's                                                 gross                             income                                     to                 determine                                              his                    adjusted                                        annual                                  income                                     under  

Rule    90.3(a)(1)(A):       federal    income    tax,    mandatory    contributions    to    Alaska's  

 Supplemental    Benefits    System    (SBS)    Annuity    Plan    (the    State's    Social    Security  

equivalent),   Medicare   tax,   mandatory   union   dues,   and   mandatory   contributions   to  

Terrence's retirement plan.                                                                                                While CSSD did take those deductions into account, Elissa                                                                                                                                                                                      

argues that it erred in calculating two of them - federal income tax and Medicare tax -                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

resulting in an incorrect figure for Terrence's annual adjusted income.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    We agree.   

                                                                                             a.	 	                         Federal income tax                                                         

                                                               Based on the documentation Terrence provided, CSSD determined that his                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

    2014 income tax obligation was $1,731.51 per month, or $20,778.12 per year.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Elissa  

    argues that this calculation overstated Terrence's tax obligation because it was based on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

    his gross, rather than taxable, income.                                                                                                                                           The child support guidelines worksheet that                                                                                                                                                  

    CSSD   submitted   to   the   court   listed   Terrence's   "total   taxable   gross   income"   as  

    $108,729.72. According to the worksheet, this number was derived, as discussed above,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

    by extrapolating Terrence's State income to an annual figure and adding his PFD and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

    native corporation dividend income.                                                                                                                                        But as Elissa argues, Terrence's total taxable                                                                                                                                      

    income was significantly lower, because not all of his gross income from his State                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

    employment was subject to federal taxation.                                                                                                                                                            



    updated Dec. 14, 2015) (explaining that "non-taxed" income, including "such things as  


     . . . non-taxable cell phone allowances," are "included in Total Gross amount").  

                                                                                                                                                                                               -6-	                                                                                                                                                                             7144

----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                            The United States tax code allows certain deductions from gross income                                                                    


before federal income tax is calculated.                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                        As an Alaska State employee, Terrence was  


allowed  deductions  for  the  following:                                                "non-taxed"  items  including  a  cell  phone  


allowance ($540); employee-paid premiums, including voluntary SBS and employee  


health insurance premiums ($4,684.32); deferred compensation ($1,080); mandatory  


SBS, which is excluded from federal taxation until the employee withdraws it upon  


termination  of  employment  ($6,461.94);  and  mandatory  retirement  contributions  

                          10  Taking those deductions into account, Terrence's total taxable income for  


2014,  extrapolated  annually  and  then  adding  the  PFD  and  other  dividends,  was  


$88,671.65, not $108,729.72 as calculated by CSSD.  This result comports with the  


"taxablecompensation"shownonTerrence'sOctober 2014 paycheckwhenextrapolated  




                            The next step in the analysis is to determine the actual tax obligation.  In  


order to do so, CSSD assumes a standard deduction for a single person.  In 2014 that  


              9             26 U.S.C.  211 (2012).                             

              10            See ALASKA  DEP 'T OF                          ADMIN.,  supra  note 8, at 1-2 (detailing income and                                               


contributions not subject to taxation). The amount of each of these deductions is derived                                                                             

by the same formula used to determine Terrence's 2014 gross income:                                                                                   the amount on  

his October 2014 paycheck divided by 20, then multiplied by 24.                                                                           

              11            Terrence's taxable compensation was listed on his October pay stub as  


$71,580.54.  Extrapolating that amount over the entire year and adding the PFD and  


other dividends yields $88,671.65. Terrence's W2 and other income documentation are  


also consistent with this result.  In 2013 his total gross income as of his last paycheck  


was $107,123.76, while his taxable compensation was listed as $87,876.31.  According  


to his W2, his wages for the year were the latter number, which was used as the starting  


point for calculating his federal income tax.  His gross income does not factor into that  




                                                                                        -7-                                                                                7144

----------------------- Page 8-----------------------


standard deduction was $6,200, and the applicable personal exemption was $3,950.                                                                                                       


After application of the standard deduction and the personal exemption, Terrence's  


taxable income was $78,521.65.  The federal income tax calculated on that amount in  




2014 was $15,488. 

                            CSSD did not explain to the superior court how it derived Terrence's  


federal income tax obligation, but whatever method it used, it arrived at a tax obligation  


of $20,778.12, approximately $5,290 higher than it should have been.  In fact, CSSD's  


federal income tax determination is almost precisely what it would have been had CSSD  


neglected to deduct Terrence's pre-tax income, as Elissa claims occurred.  Subtracting  


the standard deduction and personal exemption from CSSD's total taxable income figure  


of $108,729.72 leaves $98,579.72 in taxable income. In 2014, the tax obligation for that  


                                            14  - almost exactly the amount CSSD calculated.  We can only  

income was $20,777                                                                                                                                                          


conclude that CSSD failed to deduct those portions of Terrence's income that are not  


                                                                                                                                    15    This led it to deduct  

subject to taxation before it calculated his federal income tax.                                                                                                       


              12            INTERNAL   REVENUE   SERV.,  Form 1040                                               , U.S. I       NDIVIDUAL   INCOME   TAX  

RETURN at 2 (2014),                                                                                   


              13            INTERNAL                  REVENUE                  SERV.,            1040            TAX          TABLES               at       85        (2014), ElissacalculatedTerrence'sincome                                                                                  

tax obligation at $15,398, apparently assuming that he would have selected a slightly                                                                                

lower   alternative capital gains tax                                       in  lieu  of the regular                        scheduled   tax   of $15,488.                              

Because this minor discrepancy does not affect the analysis, we do not consider which                                                                                    

amount more accurately reflected Terrence's actual obligation.                                                                       

              14            Id. at 87.  


              15            CSSDdoes not dispute that itisrequired to deduct the non-taxableelements  


of Terrence's income before calculating his income tax; it simply failed to do so.  In an  


affidavit  CSSD submitted to  the superior  court it stated  that "SBS and Retirement  


deductions are pre-tax deductions for the purpose of calculating an individual income tax  



                                                                                        -8-                                                                                7144

----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

$5,290 too much from Terrence's total income, resulting in an artificially low annual                                                                                  

adjusted income for the purpose of calculating child support.                                                                    

                                          b.            Medicare tax   

                            Elissa also addresses Terrence's Medicare tax obligation, arguing that he         


would have owed only $1,460.57 rather than $1,536.36 as calculated by CSSD.                                                                                                 The  


minor difference between these two numbers would not alone affect the outcome of this  


case, but Elissa is correct.  The Medicare tax rate for employees is 1.45% of Medicare  


wages (gross wages minus non-taxed items, voluntary SBS contributions, and employee  



health insurance premiums).                                     CSSD's number, $1,536.36, is 1.45% of $105,954.72 -  


Terrence's gross income from his State employment.                                                                      It appears  that  CSSD based  


Terrence's Medicare tax obligation on his gross income without deducting income not  


subject to the tax.  


                            HadCSSDcalculated Terrence'sMedicaretaxcorrectly, it would havefirst  


deducted from his pay the non-taxed amounts (the $540 cell phone allowance) and pre- 


tax  deductions  such  as  voluntary  SBS  and  employee  health  insurance  ($4,684.32),  

                                                                                                                              18    1.45% of that amount is  


yielding $100,730.40 in income subject to the Medicare tax. 

$1,460.59, almost exactly what Elissa suggests - and this is the amount the State  



obligation   and   determining  the   adjusted   annual   income   from  which   income   for   child  

support  purposes  is  calculated."  

              16            Terrence's  yearly  obligation  would  have  been  $1,536.36  based  on  CSSD's  

monthly  Medicare  tax  calculation  of  $128.03.   

              17            26 U.S.C.  3101(b)(1) (2012);  3121(a), (b).  


              18            ALASKA  DEP 'T OF  ADMIN.,  supra  note  8.   

                                                                                        -9-                                                                                7144

----------------------- Page 10-----------------------


 actually    withheld.                                  CSSD    overstated    Terrence's    Medicare    tax    obligation    by  

 approximately $75 per year and as a result, again, deducted too much money from his   

 gross income when calculating his annual adjusted income for child support purposes.                                                                                                                            

                                4.	 	           Reliance on CSSD's erroneous income calculations                                                                                                  

                                                resulted in an unwarranted modification of child support.                                                                     

                                Relying on its incorrect calculations of federal income and Medicare taxes,                                                                                       


 CSSD determined                               that Terrence's 2014                                 adjusted   income was $71,868.24.                                                          CSSD  


 applied to this figure the appropriate multiplier of .27 under Rule 90.3, concluding that  


 Terrence's monthly child support obligation was $1,617.  The change from Terrence's  


 original child support obligation of $1,932.92 was 16.3%.  Because that change was  


 greater than 15%, CSSD presumed there had been a material change in circumstances  


justifying a modification to his obligation.  


                                But Terrence's adjusted annual incomefor Rule90.3 purposes should have  



been $76,694.15,                                assuming the accuracy of CSSD's other deductions (which Elissa  

                 19             Elissa appears to have derived this number through an annual extrapolation                                                                      

 of Terrence's Medicare withholdings as of his October 2014 paycheck.                                                                                                              Terrence's  

 mandatory Medicare tax withholding as of that time was $1,217.14, which extrapolated                                                                                             

 annually yields an obligation of $1,460.57.                                  

                20              CSSD derived this number by deducting the following from Terrence's  


 gross income ($109,269.72, according to CSSD): mandatory SBS ($6,495); Medicare  


 tax ($1,536.36);uniondues($1,440); mandatory retirement ($7,152); andfederal income  


 tax ($20,778.12).  


                21              Gross income of $108,729.72 (corrected so as not to double-count the  


phone allowance) is reduced by union dues ($1,440), CSSD's calculations of mandatory  


 SBS ($6,495) and retirement ($7,152), along with the corrected deductions for federal  


 income tax ($15,488) and Medicare tax ($1,460.57).  


                                                                                                   -10-	                                                                                           7144

----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

does not challenge).22  Based on that adjusted annual income, the annual child support                                                                              

obligation for two children is $20,707.42, with a monthly obligation of $1,725.62 -                                                                                                                                          

again,   almost   exactly   the   amount   Elissa   proposes.    The   change   from   the   existing  

obligation is only 10.7%, insufficient to presume that a modification of child support is                                                                                                                                      

warranted under Rule 90.3(h).                                                     

                                   In granting the requested modification, the superior court appears to have                                                                                                          

relied solely on CSSD's calculations.                                                                   We have held in the past that "CSSD has no                                                                          

decision-making role to play [in child support determinations], and the court has no                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                             23   In Monette v. Hoff we considered the  

obligation to accept CSSD's initial calculation."                                                                                                                                                                           

superior court's adoption of a child support calculation and subsequent administrative  


decision of CSSD (then referred to as CSED).24                                                                                     A non-custodial parent claimed that  


CSED  had  erroneously  calculated  her  child  support  obligation  by  overstating  her  


income.25                    The parent provided the court with her tax return to demonstrate that her  


income was far less than what CSED attributed to her, but the superior court nevertheless  


                                                                                                                                           26      We observed that the superior  

denied her motion to modify the child support order.                                                                                                                                                          


court did not show how it had determined child support and that "[t]he superior court  


may have applied a deferential standard of review of CSED's prior calculation of child  



                                   CSSD's  calculations   of   Terrence's   mandatory   SBS   and   retirement are  

slightly different than Elissa's. But because the differences are minor and because Elissa                                                                                                                          

does not challenge them on this appeal, we do not consider them further.                                                                                                    

                  23               Reilly v. Northrop, 314 P.3d 1206, 1213 (Alaska 2013) (citing Alaska R.  


Civ. P. 90.3; McDonald v. Trihub, 173 P.3d 416, 422-23 (Alaska 2007)).  


                  24               958 P.2d 434, 437 (Alaska 1998).  


                  25               Id.  


                  26               Id.  


                                                                                                            -11-                                                                                                      7144

----------------------- Page 12-----------------------


support and adopted the support amount as calculated by CSED."                                                                         We noted that such            

an approach "would have been error, because the superior court could not simply adopt                                                                              


or deferentially review an administrative decision by CSED."                                                                    


                           Here Elissa provided the court with extensive documentation and her own  


calculations, supported by the affidavit of her accountant witness, in an attempt to  


demonstrate that CSSD erred. As "the party attacking the child support determination,"  

she "bore the burden of proving, by the preponderance of the evidence, that [CSSD's]  

                                                                          29   We conclude that she met that burden.  


income calculations were incorrect." 

             B.	 	         It Was Error To Grant The Requested Child Support Modification In  


                           The Absence Of A Child Support Guidelines Affidavit From Terrence  


                           As Required By Rule 90.3.  


                           Elissa makes two additional arguments.  First, she argues that CSSD, and  


therefore the superior court, erred not only in its calculation of Terrence's child support  


obligation but also by performing that calculation without theincomedocumentation that  


Rule 90.3 requires. Second, she argues that it was error for the superior court to shift the  


burden  to  her  to  demonstrate  that  Terrence  did  not  receive  income  from  his  new  


consulting business in 2014 rather than requiring him to submit an affidavit stating  


whether he did.  


                           We agree that Terrence should have been required to submit an income  


affidavit. In its Notice of Petition for Modification, CSSD requested income information  


from both Elissa and Terrence, including notarized income affidavits, W-2s and tax  


returns, and recent pay stubs.  Terrence apparently submitted only his recent pay stubs  


             27           Id.   

             28           Id.   

             29            Nunley v.  State,  Dep't  of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Div., 99  P.3d 7, 9  

(Alaska  2004).   

                                                                                   -12-	                                                                           7144

----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

and an unsigned, self-prepared 2013 tax return.                                                                                 Elissa argues that because Terrence                                  

failed to submit requested documentation, "especially the sworn income affidavits,"                                                                                                            

CSSD   should   not   have   considered   his   request   for   modification.     She   cites   to  

Rule 90.3(e)(1), which requires that "each parent in a court proceeding at which child                                                                                                                          

support is involved must file a statement under oath which states the parent's adjusted                                                                 

annual income . . . .                          This statement must be filed with a party's . . . motion to modify."                                                                                                            

The commentary to Rule 90.3 also states that "each parent . . . must provide the court                                                                                                                         


with an incomestatementunder oath"and "documentation of current and past income."                                                                                                                                              

                                  Our case law supports Elissa's argument that submission of an income  


affidavit was mandatory. In Harris v. Westfall an appellant argued that the trial court had  


erred by failing to require her former husband to file a child support guidelines affidavit,  


and we agreed that "the [trial] court had to know [his] earning capacity and should have  


required him to submit a child support guidelines affidavit."31                                                                                                   We also noted that the  


calculation of child support on remand would "require [both parents] to file current child  



support guidelines affidavits."                                                    


                                  An affidavit was particularly critical in this case because of Terrence's  


nascent consulting business, begun in 2013.  Whether it generated any income in 2014  


is  an  unresolved  question  of  fact,  though  presumably  Terrence  has  access  to  that  


information.  As Elissa argues, the failure to require Terrence to file an income affidavit  


improperly shifted the burden to her to show what income he may have received from  


the consulting business or other sources not reflected in his pay stubs.  It was error to  


grant a modification in Terrence's favor in the absence of his supporting affidavit.  


                 30               Alaska  R.  Civ.  P.  cmt.  VIII(A).   

                 31               90  P.3d   167,   175  (Alaska  2004).  

                 32               Id.   

                                                                                                         -13-                                                                                                   7144

----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

V.                               CONCLUSION  

                                                                 The order modifying the 2012 child support obligation is REVERSED.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules

IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights