Knutson v. Knutson
Court not required to base alimony on present income – may be based on earning capacity or prospective earnings.
Balaam v. Balaam
A divorced husband should be allowed a fair choice of a means of livelihood and to pursue what he honestly feels are his best opportunities even though he might for the present, at least, be working for a lesser financial return.
Edwards v. Edwards
No basis for finding that working as independent barber was not occupation for which H was best suited – to base award on capacity, court must make appropriate findings based on record before it.
Marriage of Dennis
Order to seek other employment or additional employment was not an abuse of discretion.
In Re Marriage of Tozer v. Tozer
Refusal to modify support affirmed where husband quit his job before securing alternative employment.
Marriage of Wallen v. Wallen
Evidence insufficient that husband was failing to exercise capacity to earn to reduce ability to pay support.
In Re Paternity of R.L.M. v. T.J.W.
“Two-Tiered” order affirmed. Even with no shirking, trial court could base child support award on earning potential where H intentionally worked part time in order to go to school.
In Re Marriage of Roeling v. Roeling
Where shirking is found, change in circumstances is based on change in earning capacity.
Parker v. Parker
Incarceration for intentional crime is not a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of child support.
Zirngibl v. Zirngibl
Wife’s potential earning capacity is not an appropriate basis for determining maintenance in view of her testimony that she does not plan on teaching. A spouse is not disqualified from maintenance if he or she makes a career choice which results in reduced income.