Parental Resp Conc ATM

Opinion

25CA2484 Parental Resp Conc ATM 08-27-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA2484 Adams County District Court No. 19DR1795 Honorable Sara Price, Judge

In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning A.T.M., a Child, and Concerning Shauanna Andrea Abbott, Appellee, and Steven Joseph Merker, Appellant.

ORDER REVERSED AND CASE

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division V

Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY Yun and Schutz, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)

Announced August 27, 2026

No Appearance for Appellee Steven Joseph Merker, Pro Se

¶1 Steven Joseph Merker (father) appeals the district court’s order modifying his child support obligation to Shauanna Andrea Abbott (mother). We reverse and remand for additional proceedings.

I. Relevant Facts

¶2 In 2019, mother filed a petition seeking an allocation of parental responsibilities for the parties’ child. The court’s permanent orders regarding parenting time and child support reflected the parties’ agreement that father earned $13,000 per month from his solely owned real estate development company, Merker Corporation (the business), and that father would pay mother $600 per month in child support.

¶3 In 2024, father moved to reduce his child support obligation. He alleged that the COVID pandemic, increases in interest rates, and “causes and conditions” outside his control had negatively impacted the business. He claimed that, as a result, he could no longer pay the monthly child support specified in the permanent orders. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on father’s motion a year later. At the hearing, mother argued that father’s monthly gross income was $26,250, while father maintained that it

2

was $6,250. The court determined that the correct figure was $71,944.93.

¶4 To arrive at this figure, the district court first found that father was drawing on a line of credit to pay personal expenses, and the business made distributions to reimburse him for the draws. The court found that those distributions constituted income to father but did not quantify their amount.

¶5 Next, the court found that father routinely transferred funds between the business’s checking account and his own personal checking account. Upon reviewing the statements for both accounts, the court found that, from February 2024 through April 2025, the business and father had total incomes of $504,657.44 and $142,850, respectively. The court noted that it was missing bank statements for May, June, and November 2024. The district court then combined the two income figures to reach a total of $647,507.44. It then divided this sum by the nine months of available statements, resulting in a monthly gross income figure of $71,944.93. Based on these calculations, the court increased father’s monthly child support obligation to $1,581.83.

3

¶6 Father moved for reconsideration under C.R.C.P. 59, but the district court denied the motion.

II. Modification of Child Support

¶7 Father contends that the district court failed to make sufficient findings to explain the basis for its income calculation. We agree.

¶8 Child support must be calculated using each parent’s actual gross income. § 14-10-115(3)(c), (5)(a)(I), C.R.S. 2025. Gross income generally includes “income from any source.” In re Marriage of Schaefer, 2022 COA 112, ¶ 15, 522 P.3d 732, 736 (quoting § 14-10-115(3)(c), (5)(a)(I)).

¶9 We review child support orders, including a court’s determination of a parent’s income, for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Tooker, 2019 COA 83, ¶¶ 12, 27, 444 P.3d 856, 859, 861. The court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law or acts in a manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair manner. In re Marriage of Pawelec, 2024 COA 107, ¶ 31, 562 P.3d 106, 114.

¶ 10 We must accept the district court’s factual findings concerning a parent’s income unless the findings are clearly erroneous, meaning they lack support in the record. See In re Marriage of

4

Connerton, 260 P.3d 62, 66 (Colo. App. 2010). But the court must make sufficiently explicit factual findings to give “an appellate court an understanding of its order’s basis and to enable the appellate court to determine the grounds upon which it rendered its decision.” In re Marriage of Humphries, 2024 COA 92M, ¶ 43, 559 P.3d 271, 280.

¶ 11 As relevant here, the district court’s order states as follows:

Father testified about the nature of his self employment and how he is currently drawing on a line of credit with PB&T Bank. [He]

testified that the funds being paid to him are reimbursements for personal expenses[,] which is corroborated by the bank statements.

Therefore, the [c]ourt finds that the distributions [he] is receiving are income pursuant to C.R.S. §[ ]14-10-115(X). [He] also testified about [a] . . . project he is developing in Broomfield. Based upon the size and scope of that development project it is likely [he] will have significant future income.

....

It is undisputed that [f]ather is the sole owner of [the business] and that he routinely transferred funds between [the business’s]

Wells Fargo account and his personal Wells Fargo account. The [c]ourt has conducted an in-depth review of the bank statements for both accounts. From February 2024 through April 2025, [the business] had a total income

5

of $504,657.44. During that same time period[,] [father’s] income was $142,850.

The [c]ourt is missing the May 2024, June 2024[,] and November 2024 account statements and therefore, the [c]ourt will calculate [f]ather’s income based on the [nine]

months of available statements. The [c]ourt calculates [his] combined income from February 2024 to April 2025 as $647,507.44, or $71,944.93 per month.

¶ 12 In denying father’s C.R.C.P. 59 motion, the district court reiterated that “the income [father] receives from his line of credit” constitutes income for purposes of calculating child support.

¶ 13 Without more specific findings explaining how the district court calculated father’s income, we cannot determine whether the court’s factual findings are supported by the record and whether its legal conclusions were consistent with Colorado law. See Humphries, ¶ 43, 559 P.3d at 280.

¶ 14 First, the district court did not explain its methodology. The order suggests that it calculated father’s income by adding the deposits made into his business and personal accounts, as well as the distributions father received from the business to reimburse him for personal expenses. But the court did not quantify the amount of the distributions. (Moreover, even if the court’s

6

methodology was correct, its arithmetic appears faulty. Excluding the amount of the distributions, we arrive at a total amount of $678,757.44, and not the $647,507.44 the court found.) The court also failed to clarify whether or how it treated the transfers between father’s business and personal accounts to determine his income — raising the possibility of double counting.

¶ 15 Second, although the district court stated that it did not have the May, June, and November 2024 account statements, the record shows that those statements were admitted into evidence and, therefore, were available to the court.

¶ 16 Third, it is unclear what time period the district court used in making its calculations. February 2024 through April 2025 spans fifteen — not twelve — months. And if the three months of the purportedly missing statements were excluded, twelve — not nine — months of statements would remain.

¶ 17 Given these discrepancies, we cannot determine whether the figures and time period on which the district court relied accurately reflect that father’s monthly gross income was $71,944.93. Nor can we determine whether the court included the business’s distributions in its income determination. Absent additional

7

findings, we cannot meaningfully review the court’s decision. See id.

¶ 18 We therefore reverse the child support order and remand for the district court to reconsider father’s income. On remand, the court must make findings that explain the evidence on which it relied, the methodology it used, and the time period underlying its calculation. The court should also take care to avoid double counting. If the court deems it necessary, it may receive additional evidence. See In re Parental Responsibilities M.G.C.-G., 228 P.3d 271, 273 (Colo. App. 2010) (directing the district court to consider the parties’ “present circumstances” on remand); In re Marriage of Foss, 30 P.3d 850, 853 (Colo. App. 2001) (allowing the parties to show “their current circumstances” when a new support order must be entered on remand).

¶ 19 Father also contends that the district court improperly (1) treated the business’s gross receipts, loan proceeds, return of equity, and internal transfers as income and (2) relied on “future income” from the Broomfield development project when calculating his income. But because we cannot determine how the court calculated his income, we decline to address those issues.

8

¶ 20 In light of our disposition, we need not address father’s assertion that the district court also erred by denying his motion for reconsideration.

III. Disposition

¶ 21 The order is reversed, and the case is remanded for further findings consistent with this opinion.

JUDGE YUN and JUDGE SCHUTZ concur.