Ernest P. Lasché v. Pamela Beth Levin

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed an award of current and retroactive child support against Ernest P. Lasché. The court held that non-periodic distributions from trust principal should not be included per se as gross income under the child-support guideline and remanded for recalculation. It otherwise upheld the retroactive award, rejection of laches, refusal to deduct beach-property expenses and business losses, and calculation of current support.

Holdings

1. The trial court was not barred by statute or controlling case law from awarding retroactive child support dating to January 1996 under the Child Support Guideline then in effect.
2. The trial court properly rejected Lasché's laches defense because Levin's delay was neither undue nor unexplained and Lasché failed to establish legally cognizable prejudice.
3. Non-periodic distributions from trust principal upon termination of the trusts are not per se gross income under the District of Columbia Child Support Guideline.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to deduct real-estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses associated with Lasché's inherited beach property.
5. The trial court properly refused to deduct Lasché's claimed online-business losses because he failed to provide evidence establishing that the expenses were reasonable and necessary.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to deduct Lasché's 2006 business expenses because he offered no evidence of those expenses.
7. The trial court properly considered Lasché's earning potential and did not abuse its discretion in determining current child support.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court had authority to award retroactive child support dating to January 1996.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting Lasché's laches defense.
3. Whether non-periodic distributions from terminating trusts constituted gross income under the District of Columbia Child Support Guideline.
4. Whether expenses associated with Lasché's inherited beach property and losses from an online business venture should have been deducted in calculating child-support income.
5. Whether the trial court properly calculated current child support without deducting undocumented 2006 business expenses.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded