Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Perez Ruiz and Perez Machado

Court of Appeals of Oregon

• Citations: 347 Or. App. 528
• Docket Number: A185734
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Kamins

• Disposition: Reversed and remanded for redetermination of father's income; otherwise affirmed.

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Reversed and remanded for redetermination of father's income; otherwise affirmed.

Combined Opinion

528 February 25, 2026 No. 168

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of the Marriage of
Ericka Mariela PEREZ RUIZ,
Petitioner-Respondent,
and
Raul Suniel PEREZ MACHADO,
Respondent-Appellant.
Clackamas County Circuit Court
23DR21352; A185734

Ulanda L. Watkins, Judge.
Argued and submitted January 20, 2026.
George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for
appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
KAMINS, J.
Reversed and remanded for redetermination of father’s
income; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 528 (2026) 529

KAMINS, J.
In this domestic relations case, father appeals from
a general judgment regarding a dissolution of marriage and
the award of spousal and child support. In a single assign-
ment of error, he contends that the court erred in calculat-
ing the amount of spousal and child support by failing to
properly account for his business expenses when it deter-
mined his income as a self-employed individual. We reverse
and remand for redetermination of father’s income.
Prior to determining each party’s income, the
trial court held a hearing and received evidence concern-
ing father’s business expenses. Father owns a construc-
tion company that primarily operates as a subcontractor.
A bookkeeper testified that father’s annual gross profit in
2023 was $142,8901 and that his net income, calculated by
subtracting general business expenses from the gross profit,
was $73,668. The bookkeeper based her calculation on bank
statements and credit card statements received from father
that detailed all business-related income and expenses, and
the court received these along with the bookkeeper’s profit
and loss statement. Father also testified as to the necessity
of his business expenses. Mother argued that some expenses
were not business related, but she did not testify or other-
wise provide evidence to support her assertion. Father’s
business’s largest client also testified that subcontractors in
their field usually have a profit margin of around 15 percent.
The trial court expressed disbelief as to the general
business expenses presented, because the bookkeeper’s cal-
culation rested entirely on records provided by father, and
determined that father’s income was equivalent to the busi-
ness’s gross profit, $142,890:
“I am going to give you some credit for your costs, but
I’m not giving you credit all the way down to 73,000. I’m
just not.
“I’m going with your gross profit. Your expenses, they
vary and that’s in your—a hundred percent in your control.

1
This was calculated by subtracting “costs of goods sold,” including labor,
material costs, and subcontractor expenses, from the $363,816 total income
deposited in father’s business account.
530 Perez Ruiz and Perez Machado

I know the cost of doing business is out of your control, that
is actually the cost of doing—some of it is, some of it’s not.
“You kind of control how much you pay for labor and
you kind of control for how much you pay for costs with the
deals that you make and that sort of thing, but—I’m going
to give you that.”
We review the court’s calculation of child support
under the Oregon Child Support Guidelines for legal error
and the court’s ruling on spousal support for abuse of dis-
cretion. Morgan and Morgan, 269 Or App 156, 166-67, 344
P3d 81, rev den, 357 Or 595 (2015). A court abuses its discre-
tion if its findings are not supported by the record or if its
award of support fails to represent a choice among legally
correct alternatives. Berg and Berg, 250 Or App 1, 2, 279
P3d 286 (2012). We are bound by the trial court’s findings of
fact that are supported by any evidence in the record, which
“requires the evidence in the record to be sufficient to allow
a reasonable inference in favor of the court’s finding.” State
v. Nguyen, 268 Or App 789, 795, 344 P3d 49 (2015); Morgan,
269 Or App at 166.
To calculate child and spousal support, the court
must determine each parent’s income, meaning actual or
potential income. OAR 137-050-0715(1); OAR 137-050-
0710(1)(a). Here, the trial court determined father’s actual
income. “Actual income” means “a parent’s gross earnings
and income from any source,” and includes “[i]ncome from
self-employment [and] proprietorship of a business * * *
minus costs of goods sold, minus ordinary and necessary
expenses required for self-employment or business operation
* * *.” OAR 137-050-0715(2), (4)(f); see Cowden and Cowden,
172 Or App 343, 349, 18 P3d 479 (2001) (ordinary and nec-
essary business expenses deducted in calculating gross
income for self-employed individuals for spousal support).
Father, as obligor, bears the burden of proof when claiming
offsets for ordinary and necessary business expenses. State
ex rel Juttner v. Lofdahl, 152 Or App 26, 32, 952 P2d 81
(1998).
The record does not support the trial court’s deter-
mination that father’s income is the same as the business’s
gross profit. The court heard testimony that the typical
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 528 (2026) 531

profit margin for such a business is 15 percent, which gen-
erally aligns with father’s reported income. The court also
heard evidence that the gross profit did not account for gen-
eral business expenses like insurance, bank fees, business
licenses, and utilities. In addition, there was nothing in
the record beyond mother’s argument to discredit father’s
business expenses. The trial court was entitled to disbelieve
testimony and evidence, but it could not reasonably infer
that father’s income was the same as the business’s gross
profit from this record. See Nguyen, 268 Or App at 794-96
(court’s finding of father’s income not supported by any evi-
dence where court disbelieved father’s argued income and
instead relied on mother’s speculation as to his income). The
trial court must rely on evidence in the record to support its
findings.
Reversed and remanded for redetermination of
father’s income; otherwise affirmed.