income from the evidence it had before it. As the court stated, “the best evidence for the projection of Mr. Coghill’s 1990 income is the 1989 calendar year as the base period. The court adopts this as the only twelve month period for which the court has complete information.” The only other data the superior court had before it was data from the first quarter of 1990. Given the speculative nature of the 1990 evidence, the court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the 1989 figures. See Pugil v. Cogar, 811 P.2d 1062, 1067 (Alaska 1991) (upholding a determination of income based on an average of the non-custodial parent’s past income when the non-custodial parent worked in an industry where employment and income were erratic); Hartland v. Hartland, 777 P.2d 636, 640 (Alaska 1989) (<HOLDING>). That the superior court used the data from
holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error holding that defendant forfeits right to have issue considered on appeal when he fails to object to misconduct at trial holding that a party who fails to provide sufficient evidence at trial for a valuation cannot object to the resulting valuation on the basis of inadequate evidence holding that a party who fails to provide sufficient evidence at trial cannot object to the resulting determination on the basis of inadequate evidence holding that a party who fails to introduce evidence of the specific value of the marital residence is estopped from appealing the distribution based on that absence of evidence