Recently, a father in a dissolution proceeding learned a difficult, precedent-setting lesson. In Chakko v. Chakko (2002 DJDAR 761), the father appealed from the trial court’s order that declared the father’s income to be $40,000 per month for the purposes of computing child support. The trial court derived this number from the income provided by the father on his recent loan application to refinance the mortgage on his house which was worth $2,500,000.

The trial court’s order came after the father refused to comply with the court’s prior discovery order that the parties to exchange income and expense declarations and other documents relative to the parties’ income. In response to the father’s refusal, the District Attorney filed a motion for sanctions and subsequently introduced the loan application and requested the court impute the $40,000 monthly income as stated in the application to the father.

The father claimed that the trial court’s order was improper because the loan application was completed by a third party and the signature the application bore was not genuine. However, according to the mortgage broker who allegedly prepared the application, the application was prepared using the exact documents that the father had refused to produce pursuant to the court’s prior order.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order imputing $40,000 monthly income to the father on the basis of the loan application. The court reasoned that if the application and supporting documents were sufficient to obtain a refinance of the mortgage on the father’s house worth $2,500,000, they were sufficient to support the order imputing a monthly income for the purposes of child support.

Although the ruling was, in part, punitive as a result of the father’s refusal to comply with the court’s discovery order, this case also broadens the scope of income information sources available to parties in family law matters.