Domestic Relations – Child Support Award – Calculation of Income

The trial court erred in calculating Father’s income, by including certain work-related child care expenses that were not supported by competent evidence in the child support calculation, and by failing to adequately describe the real property affected as required by N.C.G.S. §50-13.4(f)(8).

We affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for additional findings of fact. In its discretion, the trial court may hear additional evidence.

Plaintiff Father appealed from the trial court’s order requiring Father to pay child support. Among other things, Father argued the trial court erred in calculating his income. We disagreed. Although Father claimed he was not “motivated by a desire to avoid his reasonable support obligations[,]”the trial court inferred bad faith from other “circumstantial evidence,” including evidence that Father had not paid child support for six months leading up the time he quit his job, and had even “engaged in international travel for pleasure” after leaving his job. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining Father acted in bad faith.

Father next argued the trial court erred by converting his salary at the exchange rate of the day of separation for the entire amount of child support. We agreed. The retroactive portion of the child support would be from the date of separation—March 30, 2022—until the date of the first filed claim for child support— June 16, 2023, with the income determined on March 30, 2022. The prospective portion of the child support would then be from June 16, 2023 onward and should have been calculated by determining Father’s income on the date of the hearing—June 25, 2024. In determining Father’s income for the retroactive period, the trial court used the published exchange rate for Naira–to–U.S. dollars on March 30, 2022, which was 0.002406 and resulted in converting Father’s salary from 79,478,690.57 Naira to $191,225.70 U.S. dollars. The trial court did not conduct another income determination for prospective child support, and instead, used the same exchange rate of March 30, 2022 for the prospective child support portion, which should have been calculated based on the income, including the exchange rate, for June 25, 2024. Because the trial court used only one income determination date for both retroactive child support and prospective child support, the trial court did not properly apply the Guidelines.

Finally, Father argued the trial court erred by including certain work-related child care expenses in the calculation of his child support obligation. Specifically, Father contended the trial court erred by including: (1) work-related child care expenses in the amount of $2,800.00 per month for live-in nanny care, where Finding of Fact 12 was not sufficiently supported by evidence at trial; and (2) the Montessori school expense by incorrectly classifying it as a work-related child care cost that was not supported by evidence. We disagreed with Father’s argument regarding the live-in nanny care expenses, but we agreed the inclusion of the cost of the Montessori school was not supported by evidence.

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.

Nzewunwah v. Nzewunwah (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-305-25, 19 pp.) (Julee Flood, J. Appealed from Forsyth County District Court (George M. Cleland IV, J.) Harvey W. Barbee, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant. Jackson Family Law, by Jill Schnabel Jackson, for defendant-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals