In Re Marriage of Molstad v. Molstad
Court properly considered father’s 30% placement time and second family in decision to deviate from guidelines.
Luciani v. Montemurro-Luciani
In a case of a high-income payee, the percentage standards presumptively apply, absent payor’s showing of unfairness.
Mary L.O. v. Tommy R.B.
Application of percentage standards in high income case was within court’s discretion to fashion an order serving the best interests of the child.
In Re Marriage of Sellers v. Sellers
Trial court affirmed for setting child support to husband under guidelines taking account husband’s earning capacity, wife having placement fifty percent of the time and wife providing health insurance for the children.
In Re Marriage of Nelsen v. Candee
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in not applying guidelines in modification hearing where the support ordered was sufficient to support the children and any additional amount would have been maintenance in the guise of support.
Brad Michael L. v. Lee D.
(1) Trial court erred in deviating from standards because of lack of knowledge of child’s existence and consequent inability to provide for or visit with child. This is not a statutory factor. (2) Trial court erred in using marital property law to determine payor’s income. (3) Trial court erred in deducting depreciation from gross income (4) Trial court should have considered possible imputed farm income.
In Re Marriage of Raz v. Brown
Trial court affirmed for determining that payor did not meet his burden of proof that use of the standards was unfair where payee’s income ($114,516) exceeded payor’s income ($108,384) and there was a significant disparity on disposal income after support.
In Re Marriage of Weis v. Weis
Court erred in imputing income from farmhouse, as father does not have control over the house. Similarly, the court erred in including his share of undistributed partnership profits, as he does not have authority to unilaterally mange the partnership. However, the court properly included the partnership payments of health insurance premiums for his benefit, as the constitute gross income under the federal tax code.
State v. Wall
Court properly found that it would be unfair to include vacation trips, awarded to father by his employer, in gross income as the trips could not be readily converted into cash and do not enhance the payor’s financial means to make child support payments.
In Re Marriage of Evenson v. Evenson
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in shared time place where the court did not base support on a fixed number of additional overnight equivalents.