Tang v. Tobias
Shannon Tang appeals from an order modifying the amount of child support she receives for her child by Peter Dobias. Although the courts order did obligate Dobias to pay an increased amount of support, Tang contends that increase was insufficient, because the court erroneously imputed income to her without sufficient evidentiary support. Notwithstanding the narrowness of that issue, Tang has devoted three pages of her factual statement (out of a total of five), to documenting her claim that Dobias blatantly lied about his own income in connection with a hearing held in March of 2002.
That assertion is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand; and it is frankly a bit insulting to this court to see it so prominently featured in Tangs opening brief. Whats more, if we were inclined to consider extraneous character issues in connection with this appeal (and we are not), the issue we would choose to focus on is the allegation that Tang herself had attempted to hire someone to kill, or perhaps merely hurt, Dobias wife. Although that suggestion seemed, at first blush, to be outlandish, we discovered that the trial court actually found it credible.[2]Under these circumstances, Tangs attempt to smear Dobias with irrelevant allegations of wrongdoing seems very much like a rock in a glass house.
Turning to what is at issue in this appeal, Court conclude the trial court did not err in imputing the income to Tang. The evidence was undisputed that Tang signed a loan application which reflected the amount of income imputed to her, and although she claimed the application was blank when she signed it, and that she had never authorized the amount of income reflected upon it, the evidence on the point was conflicting; the court was not required to believe her testimony. The order is therefore affirmed.
Comments on Tang v. Tobias