Can Utah courts impute income above documented earnings for child support? Ward v. McGarry Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed whether district courts may impute income for child support purposes when the imputed amount exceeds a parent’s documented earnings. In Ward v. McGarry, the court affirmed a trial court’s decision to impute income based partly on the paying parent’s own stipulation.

Background and Facts

Ward and McGarry were involved in a lengthy paternity action concerning child support. After this court’s prior remand for additional factual findings, the district court conducted a three-day trial to determine McGarry’s income. McGarry was self-employed through Iron Mountain, LLC, a construction company he partially owned. The court calculated McGarry’s monthly income at $18,284 based on his tax return, but then imputed his income at $32,318 per month—an amount “well in excess” of his documented income. The higher imputation included McGarry’s wife’s distribution from their holding company, which McGarry had stipulated could be included in his income calculation.

Key Legal Issues

Ward challenged the income imputation on two grounds: first, that the court was required to calculate income under Utah Code section 78B-12-203(4) rather than impute it; and second, that the court’s factual findings were not supported by evidence. Ward also challenged the court’s denial of her request for sanctions against McGarry for alleged discovery violations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding income calculation, the court clarified that Utah’s Child Support Act permits multiple methods for determining gross income, including imputation. In contested cases, courts may impute income if they conduct a hearing and enter findings of fact supporting the imputation. Here, the district court properly held a hearing and made detailed factual findings supporting its imputation decision. The court rejected Ward’s argument that allowing a parent to stipulate to higher income was improper, noting that the policy concern about protecting children’s support rights was not implicated when the imputation resulted in higher support obligations.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts have significant discretion in income determination for child support, provided they follow proper procedures. Practitioners should note that successful challenges to factual findings require marshaling all supporting evidence, not merely pointing to conflicting testimony. The case also demonstrates that strategic stipulations by paying parents can sometimes benefit their position when the alternative calculation methods might yield even higher results.