Horne v. Touhakis
356 P.3d 280
Alaska2015Background
- Mark Horne (father/psychological parent) and Belinda Touhakis settled custody/visitation and Horne agreed to pay $1,750/month in child support in 2009.
- Horne is a self-employed entrepreneur who reported large business losses in 2010–2012 and sought modification in late 2012 to reduce support to the $50 statutory minimum.
- At the evidentiary hearing Horne conceded imputed income was appropriate and estimated he could earn about $40,000/year (~$20/hour) in full-time employment; Touhakis presented no evidence.
- The superior court found a material change in circumstances but concluded Horne understated his earning capacity, imputed $40/hour (doubled Horne’s estimate) and set gross imputed income at $83,200, resulting in $1,050/month support.
- Horne moved for reconsideration arguing (1) insufficient factual findings to support imputed income, (2) the modification was partially retroactive and should use actual income for retroactive period, and (3) the court should have applied Rule 90.3 retirement and health-care deductions; motion denied and Horne appealed.
- The Alaska Supreme Court vacated and remanded because the superior court’s findings about imputed income lacked the required detail tying the imputation to Rule 90.3(a)(4)’s factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Horne) | Defendant's Argument (Touhakis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the superior court made sufficient findings to impute income | Court failed to explain how it arrived at $40/hr; findings insufficient to show work history, qualifications, or available jobs supporting that wage | Court relied on Horne’s agreement to impute income and on entrepreneurial experience to justify higher wage | Vacated and remanded: findings insufficient under Rule 90.3(a)(4); court must make specific findings on work history, qualifications, job opportunities, and asset income potential (may hold further hearing) |
| 2) Whether modified order was retroactive and thus should use actual income for retroactive portion | Argued partial retroactivity required using actual income, not imputed income | Court treated modification as effective after motion date (non-retroactive) | Rejected: modification effective the day after motion was served per Rule 90.3(h)(2); not retroactive |
| 3) Whether voluntary retirement deduction under Rule 90.3(a)(1)(B) applies to imputed income | If income is imputed the court should assume maximum voluntary retirement contributions and deduct them | Rule’s retirement deduction applies to actual income subsection, not imputed-income subsection | Rejected: retirement deduction applies to actual income only; not available when court relies on imputed income |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connell v. Christenson, 75 P.3d 1037 (Alaska 2003) (vacated imputed-income order lacking evidentiary basis tying imputation to available jobs and wage data)
- Koller v. Reft, 71 P.3d 800 (Alaska 2003) (remanded where court gave no findings explaining how it reached imputed income figure)
- Barlow v. Thompson, 221 P.3d 998 (Alaska 2009) (found imputed-income determination inadequate when based on single insufficient data point)
- Reilly v. Northrop, 314 P.3d 1206 (Alaska 2013) (approves use of Department of Labor wage statistics as guidance for imputing income)
- Kyte v. Stallings, 334 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2014) (clarifies Rule 90.3(h)(2) on when modifications are non-retroactive)