Trial court did not err in setting maintenance based upon husband’s income before termination without expert testimony and without using the word “shirking” where his actual earnings were reduced due to his voluntary misconduct at work.
Trial court’s finding of husband’s income by using wife’s testimony establishing the parties’ lifestyle, where the court found Husband’s testimony not credible.
Imputation of income affirmed where payer made no attempt to advertise his handyman business and only applied for 10 jobs in one year. Where children were all in school or daycare, there was no need for a full time stay-at-home parent. (Not published, but citable)
Trial court did not have to find shirking to impute income given the flexibility of the father’s income.
In a post-divorce action, it was not impermissible “double counting” to value the ex-husband’s business based on his reasonable compensation as opposed to actual compensation and then to calculate alimony based on the same excess salary that had been added back to business income, thus increasing the value of the corporate assets for which ex-wife already had received her share in equitable distribution.