Wilhour v. Wilhour

[FAMILY LAW]

In Wilhour v. Wilhour,[1] the supreme court held that factual disputes over a parent’s potential future income necessitate an evidentiary hearing to determine child support payments.[2] After Joshua Wilhour relocated to move closer to his son, the lower court still used his previous income to determine his child support payments.[3] His new income following relocation was substantially less than before, but Jacqueline Wilhour argued that the reduction was merely temporary.[4] On appeal, he argued that the factual dispute over his income necessitated an evidentiary hearing that was denied by the lower court.[5] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that there was a genuine factual dispute over whether Joshua’s income reduction was temporary or permanent.[6] Additionally, according to the court, any income change resulting from a parent moving closer to his or her child should rarely weigh against that parent.[7] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that factual disputes over a parent’s potential future income necessitate an evidentiary hearing to determine child support payments.[8]

 



[1] 308 P.3d 884 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 888–89.

[3] Id. at 887.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 888.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 889.

[8] Id. at 888–89.

Wilhour v. Wilhour

[FAMILY LAW]

In Wilhour v. Wilhour,[1] the supreme court held that factual disputes over a parent’s potential future income necessitate an evidentiary hearing to determine child support payments.[2] After Joshua Wilhour relocated to move closer to his son, the lower court still used his previous income to determine his child support payments.[3] His new income following relocation was substantially less than before, but Jacqueline Wilhour argued that the reduction was merely temporary.[4] On appeal, he argued that the factual dispute over his income necessitated an evidentiary hearing that was denied by the lower court.[5] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that there was a genuine factual dispute over whether Joshua’s income reduction was temporary or permanent.[6] Additionally, according to the court, any income change resulting from a parent moving closer to his or her child should rarely weigh against that parent.[7] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that factual disputes over a parent’s potential future income necessitate an evidentiary hearing to determine child support payments.[8]

 



[1] 308 P.3d 884 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 888–89.

[3] Id. at 887.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 888.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 889.

[8] Id. at 888–89.