working at Dillard’s making $2,300 per month. Although husband
testified that the business took a significant downturn in 2016, and that he


                                       7
                        HALLOUM v. HASASNEH
                          Decision of the Court

would have had to move locations to keep the business open, the only
evidence husband offered for proof of the downturn were notices of late
and unpaid rent for the business. The court did not find his testimony
credible.

¶25           The court applied the five factors enumerated in Pullen, and
made findings as to each factor. As to factor one, the court found that
husband deliberately shut down the business in order to minimize his
financial obligations to wife. As to factor two, the court determined that
wife and the children would be significantly impacted if it calculated
husband’s child support obligation using his retail sales income instead of
husband’s earning capacity when operating the business. When looking at
factor three and four the court determined that wife’s conduct was not at
issue and that she did not acquiesce or agree to husband’s unilateral
decision to close the business. As to factor five, the court found that
husband closed the business within a couple of weeks after wife sought
temporary orders.

¶26            The court therefore found that husband’s change in income
was not justifiable or reasonable. Nonetheless, the court reduced husband’s
income by $10,000 to account for the possible increase in rent for the
business and attributed $20,000 monthly income to husband. After
calculating child support owed using the child support work sheet, the
court determined husband owed approximately $2,000 per month.
However, because wife’s pretrial statement indicated that $1,085 was
enough child support, the court reduced the monthly amount to $1,250.

¶27            The trial court properly applied the five factors in
determining whether to attribute a greater income to husband and did not
abuse its disc