Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Katie and Peter Stern married in 2010, separated in 2017, and divorced in 2019. They have two children; Katie received primary physical custody and Peter visitation. At divorce, a neutral expert found Peter's income was $158,244 a year ($13,187 monthly), and child support was set at $2,500 a month as a knowing deviation above the guideline. In January 2023, Peter filed a request for orders seeking more timeshare and lower guideline-based support, claiming his solar installation company would earn less because the California Public Utilities Commission's NEM 3.0 policy reduced reimbursements for excess power generated.
Katie opposed a reduction and hired forensic accountant Karen Kaseno, who concluded Peter earned $273,746 in 2023—$98,996 in wages plus $174,750 in adjusted net business income. After a multiple-day evidentiary hearing in August and September 2024, the court credited Kaseno's testimony, except that it deducted the income of Peter's adult daughter Evi, the company's office manager. The court stated Evi's income as $48,495, but the opinion notes this appears misspoken because $174,750 minus $48,465 equals $126,285, the total the court pronounced as Peter's available income ($10,524 monthly)—the only figure entered into DissoMaster. The court awarded Peter equal time conditioned on anger management and conjoint therapy, with $1,003 monthly support once counseling and the new schedule took effect.
In November 2024, Katie moved to vacate the support orders or for a new trial, arguing the court omitted Peter's undisputed wages from DissoMaster. She did not realize the omission during the oral findings; she discovered it only upon reviewing the DissoMaster printouts given to the parties at the hearing's conclusion. Kaseno's report showed total 2023 income of $273,746; deducting Evi's $48,465 from the adjusted net income yields $126,285, whose monthly component was the only income entered. Peter refused to stipulate to a correction. The court denied the motion as detailed and well-reasoned, faulting the parties for not raising the issue earlier.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal first held the issue was preserved. Although Katie did not object when the court announced its oral findings, she promptly moved to vacate or for a new trial, giving Peter and the court an opportunity to address the error below; Peter acknowledged the court fully considered and rejected her position, which is precisely why the issue is reviewable on appeal.
On the merits, the court explained that California's statewide uniform guideline is based on each parent's income and custodial time, with income broadly defined to include wages and business income. The guideline amount is rebuttably presumed correct, and appellate courts review support orders for abuse of discretion, asking whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and discretion was reasonably exercised.
The court concluded the trial court obviously erred: it credited Kaseno's figures but simply overlooked the wages. Total income of $273,746 less Evi's $48,465 equals $126,285, the exact figure the court pronounced, whose monthly component was the only income entered into DissoMaster. No testimony showed the adjusted net income subsumed the wages, and Peter expressly conceded his wages should be counted. A court may deviate from the guideline only in defined circumstances; it has no discretion to arbitrarily exclude a parent's undisputed wages. The order therefore lacked a legitimate evidentiary basis, and the court reversed and remanded to recalculate support using wages ($98,996 annually/$8,250 monthly) and adjusted net income ($126,285 annually/$10,524 monthly), with costs to Katie.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court abuses its discretion by arbitrarily excluding a parent's undisputed wages from the guideline child support formula, even after crediting expert testimony that the wages are part of total available income.
- A prompt motion to vacate or for new trial preserves an issue for appeal even without an objection at the moment of oral findings, because it gives the opposing party and the court a chance to correct the error.
- When a court credits an expert's income calculation with one stated exception and the resulting figure matches the expert's adjusted amount exactly, the court cannot later claim a different intent without explanation.
- Wages and business income are both 'income' under Family Code section 4058 for child support purposes.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for recalculation based on Peter's total income—wages of $98,996 annually and adjusted net business income of $126,285 annually—and awarded Katie costs on appeal.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces that trial courts must include every source of a parent's income in guideline calculations and cannot exclude undisputed wages while claiming discretion over other aspects of the support determination.
It also clarifies preservation practice in complex family law matters: an error in a DissoMaster calculation that surfaces only when the printouts are reviewed after a hearing can still be preserved by a timely post-hearing motion to vacate or for a new trial.