Thompson v. Johnson, 926 N.W.2d 120

Thompson and Johnson share one minor child; Thompson was initially awarded primary residential responsibility and Johnson ordered to pay child support.
After a vacated judgment and new trial, the district court found Johnson had substantial assets and concluded tax returns understated his income; it calculated gross annual income of $171,560.66 and net annual income of $113,916 and ordered increased child support and substantial arrears.
On appeal this Court held the district court had not properly imputed income or explained using Johnson’s personal expenses and budget under the child support guidelines and remanded for recalculation.
On remand the district court concluded Johnson was underemployed based solely on averaged tax return and profit-and-loss losses and imputed income at 60% of statewide farmer earnings ($49,302), reducing support; it also adjusted an upward deviation for daycare.
Johnson moved to recover alleged overpayments; Thompson challenged the underemployment finding, arguing the court failed to consider in-kind income. The district court ordered Thompson to reimburse excess support; she appealed.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the district court erred by finding Johnson underemployed without considering in-kind income or reconciling its prior findings about Johnson’s cash flow and high calculated self-employment income.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court properly found Johnson underemployed	Thompson: court failed to consider in-kind income and inconsistent income findings	Johnson: tax returns and P&L showed losses warranting underemployment finding	Reversed — court erred by relying solely on tax/P&L losses and not considering in-kind earnings or reconciling prior income/cash-flow findings
Whether court complied with guidelines in imputing income	Thompson: guidelines require determination of "earnings" including in-kind income before imputing	Johnson: prior appellate language suggested underemployment; imputation appropriate	Reversed — court must follow N.D. Admin. Code §75-02-04.1-07(1)(a) two-step process and adequately explain imputation decision
Whether the court properly applied upward deviation for daycare and modified it on remand	Thompson: deviation tied to support calculation and should be reconsidered with correct income	Johnson: deviation justified by ability to access assets	Not decided on merits — Court declined to address because issue depends on recalculated support on remand
Whether Thompson must reimburse alleged excess child support	Thompson: cannot be ordered to repay where support recalculation was erroneous	Johnson: entitled to repayment for overpayments after reduced support	Not decided on merits — remanded because repayment depends on corrected support calculation

Thompson v. Johnson, 912 N.W.2d 315 (N.D. 2018) (prior appellate decision remanding for guideline-compliant income determination)
Raap v. Lenton, 885 N.W.2d 777 (N.D. 2016) (net income determination and necessity of documenting income under child support guidelines)
Forsman v. Blues, Brews & Bar-B-Ques, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2012) (declining to address issues not certain to arise on remand)
Riverwood Commercial Park, L.L.C. v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 729 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 2007) (law of the case doctrine explained)