In re Carter-Scanlon, 322 P.3d 1033

Joe Scanlon and Lona Carter-Scanlon divorced in 2003; two children; initial Montana Child Support Guidelines based on Joe's $87,051 annual income yielded $1,381 monthly support.
In 2005 Joe sought to modify child support, claiming resignation from Forest Pharmaceuticals and 25% ownership in NorthStar inspecting a residential subdivision; at that time no NorthStar income.
In 2006 the court found Joe unemployed after resignation, projected $20–$25/hour at NorthStar, declined imputing his prior Forest salary, and reduced monthly support to $814.
In 2011 Joe had a child with Joann Buer; CSED determined Joe’s income at $74,020/year and ordered $585/month support for Joann; Joe contested the CSED income determination.
From 2012–2013 the CSED hearings concluded with an average NorthStar income of $24,957/year; the district court denied taking judicial notice of the CSED facts but ultimately imputed Joe’s income at $52,000/year due to inadequate record-keeping and underemployment.
The district court maintained $814 monthly support, and the appeal challenges judicial notice and the imputed income calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by how it took judicial notice of the CSED determination	Scanlon argues judicial notice of the CSED income determination was mandatory	Lona contends the court properly treated the CSED finding as a legal record not binding on facts	No reversible error; court only noticed existence of the CSED order, not the underlying facts
Whether the district court’s income determination was clearly erroneous	Scanlon challenges imputed income as unsupported and improperly calculated	Lona argues imputation was appropriate due to underemployment and insufficient proof of actual income	Not clearly erroneous; imputation based on qualifications, history, and local earning opportunities; calculation upheld.

Lehy v. Dept. of Revenue, 266 Mont. 94 (1994) (deference to agency findings not always controlling in adjustments to income)
Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 (1997) (standing to challenge agency determinations; collateral estoppel considerations)
In re Everett, 2012 MT 8 (2012) (district court’s evaluation of conflicting testimony on income imputation)
In re Marriage of Chiovaro, 247 Mont. 185 (1990) (discretionary imputation of income for track coaching fees and similar earnings)
In re S.T., 2008 MT 19 (2008) (judicial notice in termination proceedings; importance of disputable facts)
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (limits of Rule 201 on receiving findings from another court)