Bush and Bush

“Although we exercise our discretion to review de novo only in exceptional cases, ORAP 5.40(8)(c), 'a lower court’s reliance on a crucial finding that does not comport with the evidence in the record can be a reason to exercise our discretion.'” Morgan and Morgan, 269 Or App 156, 159, 344 P3d 81 (2015).

Wife appealed the trial court's supplemental judgment modifying a general judgment of dissolution. Wife assigned error to the trial court's calculation of child support. On appeal, Wife argued the trial court erred in calculating child support because it relied on Husband's calculations provided by him on the Uniform Support Declaration (USD). In response, Husband argued his testimony at trial, given under oath, and his pay stubs were an accurate reflection of his employment income to calculate child support. “Although we exercise our discretion to review de novo only in exceptional cases, ORAP 5.40(8)(c), 'a lower court’s reliance on a crucial finding that does not comport with the evidence in the record can be a reason to exercise our discretion.'” Morgan and Morgan, 269 Or App 156, 159, 344 P3d 81 (2015). The Court held that although Husband's pay stubs were relevant evidence in calculating child support, the record showed apparent errors in the USD provided by Husband; Husband calculated hours per week instead of hours in a pay period.

Reversed and remanded for recalculation of child support, otherwise affirmed.