The respondent claims that income should be imputed to the applicant, who has not earned any income since 2001. There is merit to the respondent’s argument. The principles of imputation apply equally to the applicant if she is intentionally under-employed, unless it is by virtue of her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs. See Drygala v. Pauli, supra. The court had sufficient evidence to conclude, even on a temporary basis, that the applicant is intentionally under-employed without reasonable excuse and that income should be imputed to her.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.