QUESTION
Discretionary bonus treatment in Nevada for Child Support.
Asked on Aug 15th, 2013 on Child Support - Nevada
More details to this question:
My initial child support award (Wright v Osburn calculation applied) was based upon a annual salary earnings which contained an uncharacteristically large discretionary bonus. For the past two years I have been paying support for that amount, which is around $4000 more than my salary. I received a promotion this year which changed my bonus structure to a discretionary 10% of my salary. C.S. review is warranted, and this time I do not want to be taken advantage of where I must pay yearly a value which I may not get due to the possibility of my bonus being $0 dependent on performance/company economics. Are there any advanced opinions for NV which treat discretionary bonuses not as "guaranteed" income, and rather applied such that, my WvO calculation shows I pay 18% of my salary, thus IF I receive a bonus I simply write an extra check which is 18% of the bonus value, and provide year end documentation as proof of my bonus earnings? I can not locate this information elsewhere.
1 ANSWER
There are no such "advanced opinions." The structure of the support order you wish to put into place is one I have seen (and written) several times -- if the facts justify it (as yours appear to) and if the other side agrees, or the judge does so even over their objection.
There is no "bonus law" in Nevada's child support statutes or case law; what guidance there is comes from Scott v. Scott, 107 Nev. 837, 840, 822 P.2d 654, 656 (1991), which includes the proposition that modification of a child support order can be made in accordance with NRS 125B.070, based on the noncustodial parent's gross monthly income, including any overtime pay. 107 Nev. at 839, 822 P.2d at 655. The case discusses that overtime is to be included as income "if it is substantial and can be determined accurately." In that case, the court used a three-year average. Bonuses analyze pretty much the same way.
My suggestion would be to propose a stipulated modification of your decree as you have indicated, and if that invitation is refused, move for the modification, requesting fees for the other side's intransigence.
Answered on Sep 01st, 2013 at 6:48 PM