When determining whether one divorcing spouse has to pay spousal support (alimony) to the other (and if so, how much), California courts consider a number of factors for both of them. When it comes to financial considerations, income is very important, but so is earning potential, or “imputed income.”
Earning potential is how much a person should be able to earn based on their experience, education, skills and the local job market for their line of work. While most people want to reach or exceed their earning potential, some spouses who are ordered to pay spousal and/or child support may intentionally remain underemployed (in a job where they don’t earn as much as they could or, if they’re an independent contractor, not on as many projects as they could). They may even choose to remain unemployed for longer than necessary after losing a job.
While neither of those things seem like rational decisions, someone who is intent on not paying as little support as possible out of spite or who believes they’ve been ordered to pay too much may do just that. It’s sometimes called “sandbagging.” It’s easier to do when the person has other undisclosed sources of money.
Recipient spouses can engage in sandbagging as well
A recipient spouse can also engage in sandbagging. If they’re not making reasonable efforts to find a job that could pay them close to their earning potential, the paying spouse has a right to seek recourse.
Whichever side of the support order you’re on, if you believe that your former spouse is intentionally remaining underemployed or unemployed, you can and should present your case to the court to prove your assertion. If you’re the one being accused of intentional underemployment or unemployment, you’ll need to make your case as well. Either way, having experienced legal guidance is essential.