Marriage of Patterson v. Patterson, 226 Ariz. 356

Mother appeals the family court's exclusion of the value of Father's on-base military housing from his gross income for child support.
Father, a U.S. Air Force staff sergeant, lived on base and planned to continue on base; off-base housing would provide an $876 housing allowance.
The trial court excluded the on-base housing value, citing that the military is an employer and concerns about speculation, using a fixed base pay figure of $2,996.
Guidelines define gross income to include income from any source and to value in-kind benefits that are significant and reduce personal living expenses; deviation from guidelines is allowed with written findings.
The Arizona Court of Appeals held the court should determine whether the on-base housing value is significant and reduces Father’s living expenses and may consider a deviation, reversing and remanding for this determination.
On remand, the court may assess the housing value and whether it should be included in gross income; the court is not required to include it on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether on-base housing value is gross income	Patterson: value should be included as gross income if significant.	Patterson: military housing value should be excluded because employer is military/ speculative.	Yes; include if significant and reduces living expenses; remand for determination.
How to apply guidelines when non-cash benefits are involved	Guidelines §5(D) requires counting significant non-cash benefits.	Benefits may be considered speculative and not included.	Guidelines allow counting significant non-cash benefits that reduce living expenses.
Scope of remand and potential deviation from guidelines	Value may be included and deviation considered if appropriate.	Not explicitly argued due to ruling.	Remand to determine significance and potential deviation under Guidelines §20(A).

Hetherington v. Hetherington, 220 Ariz. 16 (Ariz. 2008) (include benefits if significant and reduce living expenses; de novo review)
In re Marriage of Schulze, 60 Cal. App. 4th 519 (Cal. App. 1997) (employer-subsidized housing may be included in income)
Batt ex rel. Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852 (Neb. 1998) (military housing value may be considered in gross income)
In re Marriage of Long, 921 P.2d 67 (Colo. App. 1996) (on-base housing in-kind benefit may be considered for income)
Hees v. Hees, 82 P.3d 107 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003) (include on-base housing as income if significant)
Pegler v. Pegler, 895 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995) (court may exclude insignificant on-base housing value)