horne v. touhakis, alaska (2015)

7/25/2019 Horne v. Touhakis, Alaska (2015)

1/11

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.

Readers are requested to bring errors to the at tention of the Clerk of the Appel late Courts,

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

[email protected].

THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA

)

MARKHORNE,

Appellant,

v.

BELINDATOUHAKIS,

Appellee.

) SupremeCourtNo.S-15337

SuperiorCourtNo.3AN-08-05233CI

OPINION

No.7030August14,2015

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtof

the

Stateof

Alaska,

ThirdJudicialDistrict,Anchorage,WilliamF.Morse,Judge.

Appearances: Mark Horne, pro se, Anchorage. No

appearancebyAppellee.

Before:Fabe,ChiefJustice,Winfree,Stowers,Maassen,and

Bolger,Justices.

BOLGER,Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Achildsupportobligoraskedthesuperiorcourttoreducehischildsupport

obligationtothelegalminimumafterseveralofhisbusinessventuresfailed.Duringan

evidentiaryhearing,theobligorconcededthatitwouldbefairtobasehischildsupport

obligationonimputedincome,andheestimatedthathecouldearnagrossannualincome

ofabout$40,000ifhesoughtandobtainedfull-timeemployment.Thesuperiorcourt

concludedthattheobligorunderestimatedhisearningpotential,andthecourtimputed
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/11

income to theobligor at twice the obligors income estimate. Because the courts

findingswereinsufficienttoallowustoreviewitsimputedincomedetermination,we

vacateandremand.

II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS

MarkHorneandBelindaTouhakiswereromanticallyinvolvedforseveral

yearsinthemid2000s,thoughtheynevermarriedandproducednobiologicalchildren

together. Duringtheirrelationship,Touhakisadoptedadaughter.WhenHorneand

Touhakisendedtheirrelationship,Hornerequestedcustodyandvisitationrightsasa

1psychological parent; hesimultaneouslyoffered toprovidechildsupport. Touhakis

initiallyopposedHornescontinuedinvolvementinherdaughterslife,buttheparties

eventuallysettledin2009. Underthetermsofthesettlement,thepartiesagreedthat

HornehadestablishedapsychologicalparentrelationshipwithTouhakissdaughterand

wouldhavesix-day-longvisitationrightsevery21days.TheyalsoagreedthatHorne

wouldpayTouhakis$1,750monthlyinchildsupportunderAlaskaCivilRule90.3.

Horneisaself-employedentrepreneur,andseveralofhisprojectsand

investmentsbeganlosingmoneyshortlyafterthesettlement.Inhis2010-2012tax

filings,Hornereportedadjustedgrosslossesof$87,731,$189,774,and$446,632. In

1 Apsychologicalparentis:

one who, on a day-to-day basis, through interaction,

companionship,interplay,andmutuality,fulfillsthechilds

psychological need for an adult. This adult becomes an

essentialfocusofthechildslife,forheisnotonlythesource

ofthefulfillmentofthechildsphysicalneeds,butalsothesourceofhisemotionalandpsychologicalneeds.

Carter v. Brodrick,644P.2d850,853n.2(Alaska1982)(quotingMaxF.Gruenberg,

Jr. & Robert D. Mackey, A New Direction for Child Custody in Alaska, 6

U.C.L.A.-ALASKAL.REV .34,36(1976)).

-2- 7030


3/11

late2012heaskedthesuperiorcourttomodifyhischildsupportobligationtothelegal

minimumof$50permonth.2

Thecourtheldanevidentiaryhearing,whereHornewasrepresentedby

counselandTouhakisappearedprose.Hornesubmittedhis2010-2012taxreturns,

testifiedabouthisfinancialsituation,andcalledhisaccountanttothestandtoverifythe

accuracyofhistaxreturns.Hornetestifiedthathehadnotheldatraditionaljobin

approximately 20yearsbut that inearly 2000 he had earned about $35,000asan

operationsmanagerforastevedorecompany.Hefurthertestifiedthat,inlightofhis

recentfinancialdifficulties,hehadbeenlookingalittlebitforregularemploymentand

estimatedthathewascapableofmaking$18-20perhour,orabout$40,000peryear.

Touhakiscross-examinedbothHorneandhisaccountantbutdidnotsubmitanyevidence

ofherown.Shedid,however,indicateherbeliefthatHornecoulddomuchmorethan

[theminimumchildsupportcontributions].

ThesuperiorcourtgrantedHornesmotioninpart.Thecourtfoundthat

Hornesincomehadfallenseverelyamaterialchangeofcircumstancewarrantinga

modificationtohischildsupportobligation.Butthecourtwasunwillingtoreduce

Hornesobligation tothestatutoryminimum,notingthat Hornecannotexpect[his

daughter] to finance his speculativeventures. Instead thecourt found that Horne

agreedtohaveincomeimputedtohimandbaseditsmodifiedchildsupportorderon

hispotentialincome.3 AlthoughthecourtreliedinpartonHornestestimonythathewas

capableofearning$20perhourinfull-timeemployment,thecourtconcludedthatHorne

underestimate[d]themarketvalueofhisskillsandexperienceandwascapableof

earningat least $40perhourshould hebe inclined towork for anotherpersonor

2 SeeAlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3(c)(3).

3 See AlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3(a)(4).

-3 7030


4/11

company.Basedonthishourlywage,thecourtimputedagrossannualincomeof

$83,200. ThecourtsetHornesmonthlychildsupportobligationat$1,050.

Hornefiledamotionforreconsiderationraisingthreeclaimsoferror.

Hornearguedthatthesuperiorcourtfailedtoprovidesufficientfactualfindingstoenable

appellatereviewofitsimputedincomedetermination.Heclaimedthatthechildsupport

modificationwaspartiallyretroactiveandthatthecourterredbyusingimputedincome

insteadofactualincomefortheretroactiveportion.Andhecontendedthatthecourt

shouldhavereducedhischildsupportobligationtoreflectRule90.3shealthcare 4and

retirement5 deductions. The superior court summarily denied Hornes motion for

reconsideration.

Horne appeals, renewing the claims set forth in his motion for

reconsideration.Touhakishasnotparticipatedinthisappeal.

III. STANDARDOFREVIEW

Wereviewamodificationofchildsupportforabuseofdiscretion 6and

reviewfactualfindingsregardingapartysincomewhenawardingchildsupportfor

clearerror.7Whethertherearesufficientfindingsforinformedappellatereviewisa

4 SeeAlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3(d).

5 See AlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3(a)(1)(B).

6 Childs v. Childs, 310 P.3d955, 958 (Alaska 2013) (citing Swaney v.

Granger,297P.3d132,136(Alaska2013)).

7 Williams v. Williams,252P.3d998,1005(Alaska2011)(citingKoller v.

Reft,71P.3d800,804(Alaska2003)).

-4- 7030


5/11

questionoflaw.8Interpretationofthecivilrulesisaquestionoflawthatwereviewde

9novo.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. TheImputedIncomeFindingsWereInsufficientToAllowAppellateReview.

At theevidentiaryhearing,Horneaccepted the imposition of imputed

incomeandsuggested$40,000peryearorabout$20perhourasafairestimate

ofhispotentialgrossearnings.Thesuperiorcourtagreedthatimputedincomewas

appropriatebutconcludedthatHorneunderestimate[d]themarketvalueofhisskills

andexperience.ThecourtfoundthatHornehadgainedmarketableentrepreneurial

skillsfromhisexperiencesrunningstevedoringandtelecommunicationsbusinesses,

buyingand sellingrealestate,and investinginvariousbusinesses. Thecourtfurther

foundthatHornewaslikelytoearnatleast$40perhourshouldhebeinclinedtowork

foranotherpersonorcompanyandimputedtohimagrossannualincomeof$83,200.

Hornearguesthatthemodificationordershouldbevacatedbecausethecourtsfactual

findingswereinsufficienttoenableappellatereviewonthisissue.

Rule90.3(a)(4)provides:

The court may calculate child support based on a

determination of the potential income of a parent who

voluntarily and unreasonably is unemployed or

underemployed.... Potentialincomewillbebaseduponthe

parentsworkhistory,qualifications,andjobopportunities.

The court may also impute potential income from non-

incomeorlowincomeproducingassets.

8 Hooper v. Hooper,188P.3d681,685(Alaska2008)(citingBorchgrevink

v. Borchgrevink,941P.2d132,137(Alaska1997)).

9 Johnson v. Johnson,239P.3d393,406(Alaska2010)(citingDuffus v.

Duffus,72P.3d313,316(Alaska2003)).

-5- 7030


6/11

Althoughcourts[have]broaddiscretiontoimputeincomebasedonrealisticestimates

ofearningpotential,10thecourtsimputedincomedeterminationmustbebasedonthe

fourfactorslistedintherule:theparentsworkhistory,qualifications,jobopportunities,

andpotentialincomefromnon-incomeorlow-incomeproducingassets.11

Asathresholdmatter,Horneappearstosuggestthatthesuperiorcourterred

in relyingon imputedincomeat all, given that it didnot make formal ordetailed

findingsthat...Hornewasvoluntarilyunderemployed/unemployed.ButHornenot

onlyinadequatelybriefedthisargumentbutalsoagreedtohaveincomeimputedtohim

attheevidentiaryhearingonthismatter. Wethereforedeclinetoconsiderthisclaim.12

Hornealsoarguesthatthesuperiorcourtdidnotadequatelyexplain[]how

itarrivedatanimputedhourlywageof$40.00perhourwithanymeaningfulanalysis

of...workhistory,jobqualifications,oravailablejobopportunitiesthreeofthe

relevantfactorsunderRule90.3.Hornenotesthatthecourtdidnotciteanyspecific

occupationorindustry,orfindthatanyjobscurrentlyexistandareavailableto[him]at

10 Reilly v. Northrop,314P.3d1206,1217(Alaska2013)(quotingBeaudoin

v. Beaudoin,24P.3d523,530(Alaska2001))(internalquotationmarksomitted).

11 See OConnell v. Christenson,75P.3d1037,1041(Alaska2003).

12 See Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State,347P.3d97,104

n.33(Alaska2015)(findingwaiverofinadequatelybriefedissue).Hornealsoclaimsthe

superiorcourtretroactivelymodifiedhischildsupportorderandarguesthatthecourt

shouldhaveusedactual,notimputed,incomefortheretroactiveportionofthemodifiedorder.Butthemodificationorder,whichwaseffectivethedayafterHornesmotion,was

notretroactive.See AlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3(h)(2)(Amodificationwhichiseffectiveon

orafterthedatethatamotionformodification...isservedontheopposingpartyisnot

consideredaretroactivemodification.);see also Kyte v. Stallings,334P.3d697,699

700(Alaska2014)(applyingRule90.3(h)(2)).Thereforethisargumentiswithoutmerit.

-6- 7030


7/11

thiswageamount. AndhecompareshissituationtoOConnell v. Christenson13and

other cases wherewe have held the superior courts findings insufficient to allow

appellatereviewofanimputedincomedetermination.

In OConnell wevacatedachildsupportorderwhichwasbasedonan

imputedincomeassessmentthatappeareduntetheredfromtheevidencepresentedtothe

superiorcourt.14 Theobligorfatherclaimedthathisadjustedannualincomewasabout

$8,000,andhetestifiedthathehadworkedasacommercialfisherman,hadearnedan

associatesdegreeinthecomputerindustry,andcurrentlyownedtwobusinessesa

computer business and a collection agency.15 But the courts imputed income

determinationwasbasedonnoneofthisevidence;instead,[t]hecourtsstartingpoint

seemstohavebeenthatapersonworkingatafastfoodcounterwouldearn$20,000in

ayearandthatthefatherwascapableofdoingworksubstantiallymoreremunerative

thanthat.16Weconcludedthatthesefindingswereinadequatebecauseitwasnotclear

that fast food employees [actually] receive $10 per hour, or that [the father was]

physicallycapableofsuchwork. Mostimportantly,it[was]notclearthatemployment

opportunities exist[ed] . . . that would pay twice this figure to [the father].17

Accordingly,weremandedforadditionalfindings,authorizingthesuperiorcourttohold

anadditionalevidentiaryhearingifnecessaryorusefultofurtherdeveloptherecord. 18

13 75P.3d1037.

14 See id. at1041.

15 Id.at1040.

16 Id.at1041.

17 Id.

18 Id.at1041-42.

-7- 7030


8/11

Similarly,inKoller v. Reft wevacatedachildsupportawardandremanded

foradditionalfindingswhenthesuperiorcourtissuednofindingsexplaininghowit

arrivedatthe[imputedincome]figureitannounced. 19Theobligorfatheradoctor

submittedwagestatementsshowingagrossincomeof$78,396athislastjob. 20 The

superiorcourtintuitedthat[thefather]couldmakemorethan$84,000asaphysician

in a town the sizeofKodiak, and wenoted that[s]omecircumstantial evidence

supportedthisintuition,suchasthefactthat[he]hadpreviouslyreceivedtheemployee

oftheyearawardandwasmadechiefofstaffat[a]hospital.21 Butthoughthesuperior

courts intuitions were understandable, we nevertheless held that there was no

evidentiarysupportforthecourtsfindingthat[thefathers]incomewasinexcessof

$84,000.22 Wesuggestedthatonremand,validevidentiarysupportmighttaketheform

ofinformationconcerningtheavailabilityofjobsinthearea,howmuchothersimilarly

situateddoctorsearn,[thefathers]historicalearnings,andwhat[thefather]actually

earned.23

AndinBarlow v. Thompson wevacatedanimputedincomedetermination

inpartbecauseitwasbasedona single,insufficientdatapoint: theobligorfathers

testimonythathislastfull-timejob,fromapproximatelyoneyearearlier,hadearnedhim

$15perhour.24Thesuperiorcourtmasterusedthisfiguretofindthatthefatherwas

19 71P.3d800,805(Alaska2003).

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 221P.3d998,1003(Alaska2009).

-8- 7030


9/11

capableofearning$31,200yearly,basedonaforty-hourworkweek,fifty-twoweeksper

year.25Weheldthatthemastersfindingswereinadequatetoallowappellatereviewof

theimputedincomedetermination. 26

WeagreewithHornethattheimputedincomefindingsinthepresentcase

areanalogoustothefindingswefoundinsufficientinOConnell.Here,asinOConnell,

thesuperiorcourt(1)startedwithanhourlywage,(2)doubledthatwagebasedona

determination that the parentwas capableof earningmore,and (3)failed tomake

findingsabouttheemploymentopportunitiesavailablethatwouldprovidethisdoubled

wage.27Specifically,thesuperiorcourtbeganwiththe$20hourlywagesuggestedby

Horne,doubledthatwagebasedonthefindingthatHornewasunderestimat[ing]the

marketvalueofhisskillsandexperience, 28 anddidnotsuggestanyspecificjobsor

fieldswhereHornemightearnthatwage. Wecannotaffirmthecourtsimputedincome

determinationbasedonthesefindings.

Wenotethatthepartiesfailedtoprovideevidencethatwouldhaveallowed

thesuperiorcourttomakemoredetailedfindings.Theonlyrelevantevidencebeforethe

courtwasHornescurrent(negative)income,hispositionandsalaryfrom2000,andhis

descriptionsofhisvariousbusinessesand investments. Hornepresentedlittleorno

evidence about his educational background, the jobs he is currently qualified to

undertake,orthetypicalsalariesearnedinthosepositions. AndTouhakisintroducedno

evidenceatall.Thepartiesbearresponsibilityforthisdearthofevidence.

25 Id.

26 See id.

27 Cf. OConnell v. Christenson,75P.3d1037,1041(Alaska2003).

28 Thesuperiorcourtnotedthatadmittedlyitisdifficulttodeterminethe

valueof[entrepreneurial]skillswhentryingtoimputeincome.

-9- 7030


10/11

Nevertheless,thelackofspecificfindingsinthechildsupportmodification

order prevents us from determining whether the superior courts imputed income

determinationwasclearlyerroneous,andwemustvacatetheorderandremandfor

additionalfindingsregardingthefourfactorsenumeratedinRule90.3(a)(4).29Aswe

notedinOConnell,[t]hecourtmayfinditusefultorefertotheAlaskaDepartmentof

Laborwagestatisticsforguidanceindeterminingtheamountofincometoimpute.30

Thecourtisauthorizedtoholdasupplementalhearingifitbelievessuchahearingwill

benecessaryoruseful.31

B. Rule90.3(a)(1)(B)sRetirementDeductionIsNotAvailableWhenThe

SuperiorCourtReliesOnImputedIncome.

Hornealsoclaimsthatthesuperiorcourterredbyfailingtoadjusthischild

support obligation to reflect the voluntary retirement contribution deduction of

Rule90.3(a)(1)(B).AlthoughHorneadmitsthatheisnotcurrentlycontributingtoa

retirementplan,hearguesthat[i]fthe[superior]courtisgoingtoguessat...Hornes

potentialincome...,[it]shouldalso[assume]thatifhe[were]anemployee,and[were]

29 WealsonotethatthesuperiorcourtisnotrequiredtomodifyHornes

originalchildsupportorderifitdeterminesthatthereductioninhisincomeismerely

temporary.SeeAlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3cmt.X.A.

30 75 P.3d at 1041; accord Reilly v. Northrop, 314 P.3d1206, 1217-18

(Alaska2013)(Thesuperiorcourtultimatelyagreed...thattheaverageincomeof

workers in construction and extraction occupations in [the obligors region] (as

reportedbytheU.S.DepartmentofLabor)wasthebestindicatorof[theobligors]

potentialincome....Thecourtsapproachisthetypeofapproachwehaveinstructed

thesuperiorcourtstousewhendeterminingimputedincome.).31 Hornealsonotesthatthesuperiorcourtsmodifiedchildsupportorderleft

thehealthcaredeductiontobedetermined.See AlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3(d).Onremand,

Horne will have the opportunity to present the court with documentary evidence

allowingittocalculatetheappropriatedeductionforhishealthinsuranceexpenses.

-10- 7030


11/11

abletoparticipatein[an]employerprovidedretirementplan,hewoulddosoatthe

maximumallowedbythisrule.

Horneprovidesnolegalsupportforthisclaim,32whichwefindcontraryto

the sound interpretation of Rule 90.3. The provision dealing with deductions for

voluntary retirement plan contributions is housed under subsection (a)(1), which

concerns actual income.33 In contrast, subsection (a)(4), which concerns imputed

income,containsnoreferencetodeductionsforretirementplancontributions.Nothing

in the rules plain language, structure, or commentary suggests that the voluntary

retirement contribution provision of subsection (a)(1) should be applied to

subsection(a)(4).Accordingly,thesuperiorcourtdidnoterrbyrejectingHornes

requestforthisdeduction.

V. CONCLUSION

WeVACATEthemodifiedchildsupportorderandREMANDthecasefor

furtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.

32 HornecitesMiller v. Clough,butthatcaseinvolvedactual contributions

toavoluntaryretirementplan.See165P.3d594,603(Alaska2007).

33 See AlaskaR.Civ.P.90.3(a)(1)(B).

-11- 7030

horne v. touhakis, alaska (2015)

Documents