A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).

NO. COA01-1237
                                          &nb sp; 
                                          &nb sp; 
Filed: 21 May 2002


         v.                        Guilford County
                                No. 00CVD4255

    Appeal by defendant from order entered 9 April 2001 by Judge Susan E. Bray in Guilford County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 April 2002.

    County Attorney Jonathan V. Maxwell, by Deputy County Attorney Angela F. Liverman, for plaintiff-appellee.

    Jeffrey S. Berman for defendant-appellant.

    MARTIN, Judge.

    This appeal arises out of a paternity and child support action brought by Guilford County Department of Social Services on behalf of Angela B. Armwood. After it was determined that defendant was the father of Armwood's minor child, born 2 June 1999, the district court entered an order on or about 29 September 2000, requiring that defendant pay temporary child support of $400.00 per month. This matter was then continued several times until 16 March 2001, at which time the matter of permanent child support was adjudicated.
    The parties stipulated that plaintiff's monthly gross incomewas $2,011.00, with her monthly work-related childcare costs being $192.00. Defendant presented evidence that he was self-employed, and had been so employed for a number of years. Defendant submitted and testified as to his 1998 and 1999 income tax returns. Defendant testified that his 1998 gross income was $80,847.00 and that his 1999 gross income was $81,999.00. In accordance with his 1999 tax return he had the following business expenses: advertising expenses- $11,112.00, vehicle expenses- $5,627.00, office expenses- $5,039.00, supplies- $4,719.00, travel expenses- $2,829.00, and miscellaneous expenses- $1,000.00. Defendant also noted that he employs one part-time employee in his business, and currently pays $600.00 per month for yellow pages advertising. He further stated that he owned and resided in a two-story brick home, with a tax value of $92,700.00. Defendant testified that his monthly mortgage payment on the residence was $700.00 per month.
    After hearing all of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court determined that defendant's annual income was $46,066.00. Based upon the child support obligation worksheet completed, the trial court set defendant's support obligation at $587.00 per month. On or about 2 May 2001, defendant noticed appeal from the trial court's 9 April 2001 order. Significantly, however, the trial court entered an amended order on or about 26 June 2001. While this amended order has been placed in the record on appeal, defendant has never noticed appeal from the amended order. Hence, defendant's appeal from the trial court's 9 April 2001 order must be dismissed.     Nonetheless, in our discretion, we will treat the failed appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari to review the trial court's amended order. To that end, the issue before the Court is whether the trial court erred in calculating defendant's income and establishing his child support obligation.
    It is well settled that “[t]his Court is bound by the trial court's findings where there is competent evidence to support them. . . . 'If different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, [the judge sitting without a jury] determines which inferences shall be drawn . . .', and the findings are binding on the appellate court.” Monds v. Monds, 46 N.C. App. 301, 302, 264 S.E.2d 750, 751 (1980) (bracketed language in original) (citations omitted), quoted in Mackins v. Mackins, 114 N.C. App. 538, 547, 442 S.E.2d 352, 357-58, disc. review denied, 337 N.C. 694, 448 S.E.2d 527 (1994). In Biggs v. Greer, this Court recently reiterated,
            Child support orders entered by a trial court are accorded substantial deference by appellate courts and our review is limited to a “determination of whether there was a clear abuse of discretion.” . . . [T]he trial court's ruling “will be upset only upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”
136 N.C. App. 294, 296-97, 524 S.E.2d 577, 581 (2000) (citations omitted). Significantly, “[i]f the trial court imposes the presumptive amount of child support under the Guidelines, it is not . . . required to take any evidence, make any findings of fact, or enter any conclusions of law 'relating to the reasonable needs of the child for support and the relative ability of each parent to[pay or] provide support.'” Id. (quoting Browne v. Browne, 101 N.C. App. 617, 624, 400 S.E.2d 736, 740 (1991)).
    Defendant has failed to produce a transcript of trial testimony as a part of the record on appeal. Therefore, we will presume that the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence. See Nunnery v. Baucom, 135 N.C. App. 556, 561- 62, 521 S.E.2d 479, 484 (1999) (stating where that amount of evidence necessary to understand the errors assigned as required by N.C.R. App. P. 9(a)(1)(e) and (c) “is not included in the record, it is presumed that the findings are supported by competent evidence, and the findings are conclusive on appeal[]”). In any event, we note that the parties do not appear to disagree as to what evidence was presented at trial, only as to the use of that evidence in calculating defendant's child support obligation. Defendant argues that the court erred in calculating his income based upon the evidence presented, and that the court somehow “imputed” his income. We disagree.
    The North Carolina Child Support Guidelines provide,
        For income from self-employment, . . . gross income is defined as gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required for self-employment or business operation. Specifically excluded from ordinary and necessary expenses for purposes of these Guidelines are amounts allowable by the Internal Revenue Service for the accelerated component of depreciation expenses, investment tax credits, or any other business expenses determined by the Court to be inappropriate for determining gross income for purposes of calculating child support. In general, income and expenses from self-employment or operation of a business should be carefully reviewed to determine an appropriate level of gross incomeavailable to the parent to satisfy a child support obligation.

N.C. Child Support Guidelines, 2002 Ann.R. N.C. 35. In the present case, it appears that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining defendant's child support obligation. The trial court followed the Child Support Guidelines in computing defendant's income, and consequently, his support obligation of a self-employed parent. The court found and concluded that defendant's gross income based upon his 1998 and 1999 tax returns was $80,847.00 and $81,999.00, respectively. After subtracting those reasonable and necessary business expenses as noted on his 1999 tax returns, the trial court found defendant's income to be $46,066.00. Contrary to defendant's contention, there is absolutely no indication here that the trial court imputed income to him. Indeed, on the limited record before us, the trial court's calculation reflects a fair consideration of the evidence before the court and the mandates of our Child Support Guidelines. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating defendant's income and determining his child support obligation. This assignment of error is overruled.
    Having so concluded, the amended order of the trial court is summarily affirmed.
    Judges HUNTER and BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***