Are my Reverse Stock Splits, Gifts and Loans considered income to determine my obligation to pay child support? Part 2 of 2
As we were discussing previously, we looked at how case law has determined whether Reverse Stock Splits, Gifts and Loans are to be considered part of your income to determine your obligation to pay child support.
We continue our review of In re Marriage of Anderson, 405 Ill.App.3d 1129, 938 N.E.2d 207, 344 Ill.Dec. 938 (3d Dist. 2010).
The second argument by the wife was that the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to include gifts that her husband might receive from his family as income under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3). The reviewing court stated “the trial court is required to include all income, regardless of its recurring nature, in calculating net income.” Einstein v. Nijim, 358 Ill.App.3d 263, 831 N.E.2d 50, 294 Ill.Dec. 527 (4th Dist. 2005). The relevant focus under §505(a)(3) is the noncustodial parent’s economic situation at the time the child-support calculations are made. If a parent receives payments that would qualify as “income” under the IMDMA, these payments may not be excluded on the basis that they might not be received in the future. See In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill.2d 129, 820 N.E.2d 386, 391, 289 Ill.Dec. 610 (2004). In Rogers, the noncustodial father received yearly gifts and loans from his parents totaling more than $46,000, which he had never been required to repay. The court concluded that the annual gifts were income for purposes of determining child support because they represented a valuable benefit to the father that enhanced his wealth and facilitated his ability to support his son. Id.
The third argument made by the wife in Anderson, supra, was that the trial court improperly computed her husband’s net income by failing to include any future bonuses or commissions that he might earn. The reviewing court held “as with [her husband’s] gifts, the trial court’s refusal to include 28% of [her husband’s] bonuses in its calculation of net income was an abuse of discretion.” 938 N.E.2d at 214. In Einstein, supra, the court held that the bonus payment received, although possibly not recurring, should be included for support purposes.