CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Child Support
......Amount
.........Financial Ability
............Assets/Imputing Income
 15 Cards On This Topic:
  • Attributing a rate of return to assets for purposes of calculating support.
  • The trial court imputed unreasonably low rate of return to H's assets.
  • Rate of return (3%) properly attributed to stock portfolio generating 1.6% based on common knowledge and common sense.
  • Income properly attributed to gross amount of assets parent had available before using them for criminal defense attorney, rather than on amount remaining unspent.
  • Trial court erred by including the value of marketable, but unliquidated, stock in the calculation of H’s income.
  • Failure to consider H’s “substantial wealth” may mean Cs would not benefit from his ability, circumstances, station in life, and standard of living; court should at least consider imputing reasonable income to those assets.
  • Historical pattern of investing assets for growth does not preclude attributing income to them for child support; no limit on court's discretion to impute income when in child's best interests.
  • Treasury bill rate of return (6%), supported by expert testimony, is appropriate rate to attribute to nonincome producing investments.
  • "Earning ability" includes the ability to generate income from investments.
  • If court fails to attribute imputed income to nonincome producing assets, it must state reasons it would not be in C’s best interests or in overall interests of justice to include.
  • Imminent receipt of inheritance may be considered in setting child support.
  • Fraudulently conveyed property may be considered in setting child support.
  • Effect of equity in family residence on support.
  • Assets and financial ability to pay child support.
  • Use of Vocational Training Consultants (VRCs) in child support cases.


    •