Patterson v. Patterson
248 P.3d 204
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother sought to include the value of Father's on-base military housing in gross income for child support.
- Father was a United States Air Force staff sergeant who lived on base and could receive a housing allowance off base.
- Family court excluded the value of on-base housing from gross income, citing military employer and concerns about speculation.
- Arizona Guidelines define gross income broadly and require cash value to be assigned to in-kind benefits that are significant and reduce living expenses.
- Court remanded to determine whether on-base housing value is significant and reduces Father’s personal living expenses, and to consider deviation if appropriate.
- Appellate court reversed the rulings on gross income and directed a remand for a new child-support calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether on-base housing value is included in gross income. | Paterson: include on-base housing value as income. | Paterson: exclude because military employer; housing not an earned cash benefit. | Include value after assessing significance and effect on living expenses. |
| Whether non-cash employment benefits reducing living expenses may be counted as income. | Mother argues benefits should be counted under Guidelines 5(D). | Father contends benefits are not income if not significant or are speculative. | Yes, such benefits can be income if significant and reduce living expenses. |
| Whether deviation from Guidelines is appropriate in this context. | Not explicitly stated; discipline to apply deviation if necessary. | Deviation only if applying Guidelines would be inappropriate or unjust. | Deviations may be considered with proper written findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hetherington v. Hetherington, 220 Ariz. 16 (App. 2008) (income from employer benefits may be included if significant and reduce living expenses)
- In re Marriage of Robinson & Thiel, 201 Ariz. 328 (App. 2001) (vested but unmatured stock options as recurring non-cash benefits)
- Long, 921 P.2d 67 (Colo. App. 1996) (on-base housing value included as income when significant and reduces living expenses)
- Batt, 573 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1998) (court may consider value of military housing in gross income even if non-taxable)
- Pegler, 895 S.W.2d 582 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995) (trial court may exclude value of on-base housing if insignificant)