Law Lessons from SHANKS v. ARRIETA, Appellate Division, A-5757-05T5, October 1, 2007 [LINK]:

Picture by Bearman2007

When a person has shifted to a job earning less money, which clearly does not draw on his prior skills, experience and earning capacity, the court has held that “the obligor must explain that choice with reference to other options explored and efforts to find work with comparable pay.” Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 472 (App. Div. 2004). Otherwise, such obligor faces imputation based on a realistic assessment of capacity to earn. Id. at 474.

“Imputation of income is a discretionary matter not capable of precise or exact determination but rather requiring a trial judge to realistically appraise capacity to earn and job availability.” Ibid. “Rarely is there evidence that an obligor turned down an offer of employment at a fixed amount, and proof of that or similar certainty is not a prerequisite to imputation.” Ibid. “A trial judge’s decision to impute income of a specified amount will not be overturned unless the underlying findings are inconsistent with or unsupported by competent evidence.” Id. at 474-75; Tash v. Tash, 353 N.J. Super. 94, 99 (App. Div. 2002); Rolnick v. Rolnick, 262 N.J. Super. 343, 359-60 (App. Div. 1993). Competent evidence includes data on prevailing wages from sources subject to judicial notice. N.J.R.E. 201; Child Support Guidelines, supra, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A at 2292.