## Facts

- The case is a child-support enforcement matter styled **State v. Williams**, brought by the State of North Carolina on relation of **Cheryl Williams** (custodial parent) against **Michael Williams** (noncustodial parent).
- Cheryl and Michael Williams are former spouses and have three minor children.
- At the support hearing, Cheryl testified that her father regularly paid major expenses on her behalf:
  - **$1,550 per month** for rent for the home where she and the children lived, paid through a third party, and
  - **$340 per month** for her car payment,
  - for a total of **$1,890 per month** in recurring payments.
- Cheryl testified she expected her father to continue paying rent until the lease ended and to continue paying the car note until it was paid off.
- The trial court found that Cheryl’s father made these payments on her behalf to hide Cheryl’s income and assets from the court.
- Even so, when the trial court calculated child support, it did not include the recurring rent and car payments as part of Cheryl’s gross monthly income and instead calculated her gross monthly income at approximately **$890**.
- For Michael’s income, the trial court found that the “most believable” income statement was one Michael submitted under oath in a **July 2004 bankruptcy filing**, listing annual income of **$38,400**, and the court used that figure to set his gross monthly income at **$3,200**.
- The child-support order was entered in **December 2005**, about 18 months after the bankruptcy filing used to set Michael’s income.
- Michael appealed, challenging (among other things) the determination of his income and the failure to count the third-party payments made for Cheryl as income.

## Issues

1. Whether Michael’s argument that the trial court erred by concluding he had the present means and ability to pay child support was preserved for appellate review when he cited no legal authority.
2. Whether the trial court erred by basing Michael’s gross monthly income on an earlier bankruptcy income statement—effectively relying on earning capacity—without findings that he was voluntarily underemployed or deliberately depressing income to avoid child-support obligations.
3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to include, as part of Cheryl’s gross monthly income, the recurring rent and car payments made by her father on her behalf as “gift income.”

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals treated Michael’s “present means and ability to pay” argument as **abandoned** because it was unsupported by citation to legal authority under the appellate rules.
- The court held the trial court **erred** by setting Michael’s gross monthly income at **$3,200** based on a prior bankruptcy statement, without findings sufficient to use earning capacity in place of actual income at the time of the award.
- The court held the trial court **erred** by failing to include Cheryl’s recurring third-party rent and car payments as attributable “gift income” when calculating her gross monthly income for child-support purposes.
- The case was **remanded** for recalculation (or additional findings where required) of (1) Michael’s gross monthly income as of the date of the award (or findings adequate to use capacity to earn) and (2) Cheryl’s gross monthly income including gift income.

## Legal Principles

- Child-support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the order must contain findings sufficient to show the basis for the award and allow appellate review.
- Child support generally must be based on a parent’s actual income and ability to pay **at the time the order is entered**.
- A court may base support on a parent’s **capacity to earn** only when supported by findings, grounded in competent evidence, that the parent is voluntarily underemployed or is deliberately depressing income (or engaging in similar conduct) to avoid support responsibilities.
- Regular, continuing third-party payments that cover a parent’s living expenses may constitute **gift income** and must be considered when determining that parent’s gross monthly income for purposes of applying the child-support guidelines.
- Under N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6), an argument presented without citation to supporting authority may be treated as **abandoned** on appeal.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals remanded the child-support order because the trial court used an older bankruptcy income statement to set Michael’s income without the findings required to rely on earning capacity rather than current income, and because the court failed to treat Cheryl’s father’s recurring rent and car payments as gift income in calculating her gross monthly income; Michael’s separate challenge to the finding that he had the present means and ability to pay was abandoned for lack of supporting authority.


State v. Williams, 635 S.E.2d 495 (2006)