What is NOT income available for support

When determining support obligations in family law cases, courts carefully assess various sources of income. However, certain funds and benefits are generally not considered as income available for support. Understanding these exceptions is crucial in accurately calculating support obligations. Let's explore some common examples of what courts do not consider as income for support purposes.

1. Speculative Bonus Income: Predicted receipt of large bonuses that may never materialize is generally not included as income for support calculations. Courts have emphasized the need for actual, reliable income rather than speculative amounts (Marriage of Mosley, 2008; County of Placer v Andrade, 1997).

2. Student Loan Proceeds: Student loan proceeds that were not used for books and tuition are typically not considered income. However, the obligation to repay the loan differentiates it from other sources of income (Marriage of Rocha, 1998).

3. Life Insurance Death Benefits: While life insurance death benefits themselves are not considered income, any income earned on those benefits falls within the scope of gross income (Marriage of Scheppers, 2001).

4. Cash Advances in Lieu of an Inheritance: Cash advances received instead of an inheritance are generally not considered income for support calculations (Marriage of Williamson, 2014).

5. Derivative Social Security Benefits: Derivative Social Security benefits may not be considered income for support purposes. However, they may be credited toward a child support obligation in specific cases (Marriage of Daugherty, 2014).

6. Marketable Stock Received in Business Sale: Unliquidated but marketable stock received in connection with the sale of a business is typically not considered income. However, the court has discretion to attribute a rate of return to non-income-producing assets (Marriage of Perlstein, 2006).

7. Irregular, One-Time, and Noncash Gifts: Irregular monetary payments, one-time gifts, and noncash gifts are often excluded from income calculations for support purposes (County of San Diego v P.B., 2020; Anna M. v Jeffrey E., 2017; Marriage of Schulze, 1997).