Actual Income Not Always Used in Tennssee Child Support Cases

Tennessee child support case law summary on imputed income from the Court of Appeals.

Barbara Lynn Horine v. James Alan Horine – Tennessee child support, imputed income

Barbara and James Horine were married in 1969 and had two children, both of whom were adults at the time of their 2011 divorce in Cumberland County, Tennessee.  During the marriage, they adopted their biological grandson, who was twelve years old at the time of the divorce.

The trial court granted the divorce, and made various rulings as to property matters.

The husband had a degree in Aeronautical Studies, and also held a master’s degree in counseling.  He served in the U.S. Army for 20 years and retired with the rank of major.  After retirement, he worked for two years for a company that installed home water treatment systems, and then worked for the state of Tennessee as a guard and correctional counselor, with a salary of $41,000, until the facility closed.  At the time of trial, he worked 20 hours per week as a drug and alcohol counselor, and earned $19.75 per hour.  He also received about $2,600 in military pension and about $1,000 in state pension.

The wife had a GED, and had several odd jobs during the marriage, but her main focus during the marriage was on the children.

After trial, the wife was named the primary residential parent.  When the trial court awarded child support, it imputed income to both parties.  The husband was imputed income of the larger of his current part-time employment ($1,711) or 40 hours at minimum wage ($1,257).  To the wife, the trial court imputed income of $628 per month, which was the equivalent of twenty hours per week at the minimum wage.  Also, each parent’s income included retirement pay they were receiving.  Based upon this imputed income, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $520 per month in child support.

The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and raised various issues.  Among the issues she raised was the award of child support.  She argued that the trial court had made errors in its calculation of the parties’ ability to pay.

The appeals court first noted that child support is governed by the Tennessee child support guidelines, which must be applied by the court.  It noted that a parent’s earning capacity is normally equivalent to actual income, but the actual income is not always indicated of true income.  If the court determines that a parent is voluntarily underemployed or unemployed, then it should impute income.

But before a court can impute income, it must make a threshold finding that the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.  In this case, the appeals court scoured the record, but was unable to find a specific finding by the trial court as to this issue.  Since the trial court had failed to make this finding, the appeals court held that it was error to impute income to either party.  It determined that the proper remedy was to vacate this portion of the judgment and remand the case.

The appeals court also examined other rulings of the trial court before sending the case back for the determination of whether either parent was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

No. E2013-02415-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

For more information, see Tennessee Child Support Laws.  See also Miles Mason’s book available on Amazon.com Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases.