ILNews

401(k) contributions are income for child support calculation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday affirmed that the money a father contributed to his 401(k) account during his marriage may be included as income for purposes as determining child support.

Alexander Nikolayev, who earned more than $100,000 a year at his job with Eli Lilly & Co., appealed Marion Superior Judge Cynthia Ayres decision to include his voluntary 401(k) contributions to calculate his child support obligation for his one minor son. Alexander Nikolayev and his wife Natalia divorced, with his wife claiming that Alexander Nikolayev held tight control over the family’s finances and did not increase their spending on items even as his salary increased during their marriage. Instead, he used the extra money to contribute more than $1,700 a month to his 401(k) account.

“It is true, as Alexander argues, that the guidelines and Indiana Code 31-16-6-1(a) consider the standard of living the child would have enjoyed if the marriage had not been dissolved,” Judge Rudy Pyle III wrote in Alexander Nikolayev v. Natalia Nikolayev, 49A05-1207-DR-372. “However, that standard is measured by the parent’s weekly gross income for purposes of determining child support, and it is not the parent’s prerogative to decrease the amount of weekly gross income for determining child support by his decision to invest part of the income.

“In short, the trial court did not err in ordering that the entire amount of Alexander’s salary and regular bonuses be treated as weekly gross income for purposes of determining his child support obligation.”

The judges also upheld the value the trial court placed on the household goods and personal property Natalia Nikolayev purchased after moving out but before her divorce was final. Alexander Nikolayev’s failure to comply with Appellate Rule 31 on this issue results in a waiver of a challenge to the findings on appeal.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT