Browning v. Browning, 136 Idaho 691

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed issues arising from a divorce decree concerning child support, spousal maintenance, community debts, an equalization payment, and attorney fees. The court held that spousal maintenance must be included in the recipient's gross income for child-support calculations, that imputing income to a full-time student requires a case-by-case exercise of discretion, and that the three-year maintenance award was supported by substantial evidence. The case was remanded for recalculation of support and for the magistrate court to determine how to enforce community-debt obligations.

Holdings

1. Spousal maintenance received by a parent must be included in that parent's gross income when calculating child support under the Idaho Child Support Guidelines.
2. Spousal-maintenance payments made by Stephen must be deducted from his gross income before calculating child support.
3. Child support received by Stephen must not be included in his gross income for child-support calculations.
4. A full-time student parent is not automatically required to have full-time employment imputed for child-support purposes; the amount of income attributed to the student must be determined case by case through discretionary application of the Guidelines.
5. Substantial and competent evidence supported awarding Sherry spousal maintenance for three years.
6. The magistrate had authority to enforce its own order requiring Stephen to pay community debts, and the method of enforcement was within the magistrate's discretion.
7. Sherry was not entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 32-704(3).
8. Stephen was not entitled to attorney fees because he cited no authority supporting his request.

Questions Presented

1. Whether spousal maintenance paid by Stephen had to be included in calculating Sherry's gross income for child-support purposes.
2. Whether Stephen's income had to be adjusted for the spousal-maintenance payments and whether child support received by Stephen could be included in his gross income.
3. Whether full-time employment had to be imputed to Sherry because she was a full-time student.
4. Whether substantial and competent evidence supported awarding Sherry spousal maintenance for three years rather than two.
5. Whether the magistrate had authority to enforce Stephen's obligation to pay community debts and the equalization judgment.
6. Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

remanded