Petrilla v. Petrilla, 305 P.3d 302

After divorce, the mother obtained primary physical custody of their daughter; father moved to Nevada with unemployment.
Roxana sought to modify child support and impute income to Brian under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(a)(4).
The superior court imputed income of $44,387 to Brian and adjusted support, considering lack of planning for obligation after the move.
Brian later obtained a Nevada job paying less than imputed income and moved to modify based on actual earnings.
The superior court denied modification, citing lack of timely, sufficiently detailed findings; the record lacked explicit grounds tying delay to underemployment.
The Alaska Supreme Court vacated and remanded, concluding the trial court failed to provide a sufficient factual basis for denial of modification and to account for Brian’s new employment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imputing income was proper	Petrilla argues imputation was improper or miscalculated.	Petrilla argues there were available opportunities; court must detail grounding for income level.	Vacated; insufficient factual basis for imputation amount.
Whether denial of modification was supported by a material change in circumstances	Petrilla shows new Nevada employment; seeks lower support based on actual income.	Court found no sufficient grounds to modify yet due to timing and opportunity concerns.	Remanded for detailed factual findings on earned income and opportunities.
Whether the appeal timely challenged the imputation order	Petrilla timely appealed the modification denial; issue improperly limited by earlier order.	June 26, 2012 imputation order not timely appealed; challenge must be reconsidered on remand.	Court treated as remand-focused; decision to modify vacated and case remanded for proper findings.

O’Connell v. Christenson, 75 P.3d 1037 (Alaska 2003) (requires explicit findings for imputed income)
Olmstead v. Ziegler, 42 P.3d 1102 (Alaska 2002) (abuse of discretion standard in income imputation)
Nass v. Seaton, 904 P.2d 412 (Alaska 1995) (abusive underemployment findings require basis)
Sawicki v. Haxby, 186 P.3d 546 (Alaska 2008) (duties of trial court to justify income determinations)
Richardson v. Kohlin, 175 P.3d 43 (Alaska 2008) (trial courts have broad discretion in modifying child support)
Gilbert M. v. State, 139 P.3d 581 (Alaska 2006) (courts should not issue advisory opinions)
O’Connell v. Christenson, 75 P.3d 1037 (Alaska 2003) (remanding for detailed factual findings on earnings)
Bird v. Starkey, 914 P.2d 1246 (Alaska 1996) (underemployment considerations in income calculations)