Villalobos Rivera, Brenda Liz v. Gutierrez Del Rio, Abdiel, KLAN202400412

Case involves review of a child support order between Abdiel Gutiérrez del Río (appellant/father) and Brenda Liz Villalobos Rivera (appellee/mother), for their two minor children.
A hearing on child support was held before an Examiner in mid and late 2023; recommendations were issued in February 2024 regarding payment amounts, additional expense shares, electronic payment method, and retroactive support.
The Court of First Instance (TPI) adopted the Examiner's recommendations in March 2024, setting out support obligations for two distinct periods and ordering additional payments for extraordinary expenses and retroactive arrears.
Gutiérrez sought reconsideration in the TPI, raising arguments about Villalobos’s imputable income, averaging his own income, time spent with children, proper application of new support guidelines, and appropriate attorney’s fees; reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, Gutiérrez reiterated these arguments but failed to submit the required narrative exposition of oral evidence, despite multiple opportunities.
The Court of Appeals confirmed the TPI’s decision, primarily due to the appellant's procedural failure to provide the necessary evidentiary record to challenge factual determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper imputation of appellee’s income	Villalobos’ additional income should have been imputed despite lack of proofs of business expenses; income should be calculated higher	Income was determined correctly by the examiner & accepted by TPI	No error; without a narrative of the oral evidence, TPI findings stand
Averaging appellant’s income	Gutiérrez argued his fluctuating income should be averaged for support purposes	Income calculation followed guidelines and considered relevant evidence	No error; no evidentiary basis in the appellate record to overturn calculation
Consideration of custody/time spent	Support order should have accounted for time Gutiérrez spends with children	Support set in line with presented evidence and law	No error; absent evidentiary record, factual findings affirmed
Application of new support guidelines	New 2024 regulations should apply as order was issued after their adoption	Old (2014) guidelines apply since support period predates new regulations	No error; proper guidelines were applied
Amount of attorney's fees	$800 awarded was excessive; should be $400	Fees imposed were reasonable and discretionary	No abuse of discretion; no grounds to alter fee award

Díaz Rodríguez v. García Neris, 208 DPR 706 (obligation to support minor children is of highest public interest)
Umpierre Matos v. Juelle Arbello, 203 DPR 254 (parental duty to provide support is essential and protected)
Ríos v. Narváez, 163 DPR 611 (clarifies child support obligations)
Ortiz Ortiz v. Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations, Co., 209 DPR 759 (appellate deference to trial court’s factual findings)
Serrano v. Auxilio Mutuo, 171 DPR 717 (appellate review limits factual substitution)
Torres Vélez v. Soto Hernández, 189 DPR 972 (standards for awarding attorney's fees for temerity)
Colón Santos v. Coop. Seg. Mult. P.R., 173 DPR 170 (discretion in attorney fee awards)