Alexander Nikolayev v. Natalia Nikolayev
985 N.E.2d 29
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Alexander and Natalia Nikolayev married in 2001 and had one child, V.N., born in 2003.
- Alexander works for Eli Lilly, earning over $100,000 annually including bonuses; he voluntary contributes to his 401(k).
- Natalia left the marital home in 2008 and established a separate household, funding it with family and other funds.
- The trial court on remand included Alexander’s 401(k) contributions as income for child support calculations and valued Natalia’s household goods.
- The appellate court previously remanded for findings on 401(k) income and for reconsideration of Natalia’s post-separation purchases; the current opinion affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 401(k) contributions are income for child support | Nikolayev argues 401(k) contributions should not be income for support. | Nikolayev contends contributions are not income because they are voluntary and reduce current income. | Include all voluntary 401(k) contributions as income for support. |
| Whether the remand hearing properly valued Natalia's post-separation property | Alexander argues the value allocation was erroneous and improperly reached. | Natalia contends the trial court could value property purchased before final separation. | Waiver applies due to failure to provide verified appellate record; affirmation of remand findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bass v. Bass, 779 N.E.2d 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (income for support is more inclusive than tax purposes)
- Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (weekly gross income includes potential income and imputed income)
- Saalfrank v. Saalfrank, 899 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (voluntary contributions may be included as income for child support)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 868 N.E.2d 862 (Ind. 2007) (standard of living and child support considerations)
- In re Paternity of K.I., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing trial court findings under TR 52)
- Graddick v. Graddick, 779 N.E.2d 1209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (appellate record requirements and waiver considerations)