that he owes her.
*888 We reverse the child support order and remand for a recalculation of Joe's income available for child support without imputing to him as income the rental value of the apartment. We affirm with respect to the depreciation and interest issues.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Joe and Deborah married in 1981. Their two daughters were born in 1982 and 1983. The family resided in one apartment in a triplex that Joe and Deborah owned in Barrow.
In October 1992 Joe and Deborah filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage. The dissolution agreement awarded Joe two of the units in the triplex, and awarded Deborah the third. They planned to live in separate units in the triplex after the dissolution. The parties agreed to share custody of thechildren. The parties requested a waiver of child support, which the court granted based on its written findings that the parents would live in the same building (albeit in separate units) and would share the children's expenses. The court entered a dissolution decree in March 1993.
In March 1994 Joe moved to modify the dissolution decree. He asked for sole legal and physical custody of the children, for Debra to pay child support, and for revision of the property division.
In May 1995 the superior court vacated the original dissolution decree under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b). The superior court ordered the value of the triplex to be split between the parties, awarded title to the triplex to Joe, and ordered Joe to pay Deborah for her interest in the triplex.