This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute between divorced parents over child support obligations. The mother, who was awarded real property during the divorce, rented the property and used the rental income to pay expenses and reduce the mortgage. The father, a doctoral candidate, contested the calculation of child support, arguing that the rental income should be included in the mother’s gross income, that he should receive credit for travel expenses related to visitation, and that the mother improperly claimed work-related child care expenses for a full year despite working only part-time. The mother also sought attorney fees (paras 2-3, 5-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, 1997: Approved the divorce decree, including property division and child support arrangements (para 3).
- District Court, 2001: Addressed disputes over child support arrears and future obligations, awarding arrears, ongoing support, and attorney fees to the mother (paras 2-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court erred by excluding the mother’s rental income from her gross income, denying him credit for visitation-related travel expenses, allowing the mother to claim child care expenses for a full year despite part-time work, and awarding attorney fees to the mother (para 2).
- Appellee (Mother): Contended that the rental income was used for property expenses and mortgage reduction, justified her child care expense claims as necessary for her education and part-time work, and supported the award of attorney fees due to the father’s failure to pay child support (paras 6, 23, 28).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in excluding the mother’s rental income from her gross income for child support purposes.
- Whether the father was entitled to credit for visitation-related travel expenses.
- Whether the mother’s claim for work-related child care expenses for a full year was appropriate.
- Whether the award of attorney fees to the mother was justified.
Disposition
- The district court’s exclusion of the mother’s rental income and denial of travel expense credit were reversed and remanded for reconsideration (paras 12, 21).
- The district court’s allowance of the mother’s child care expenses and award of attorney fees were affirmed, but the amount of attorney fees was remanded for adjustment (paras 27, 29-30).
Reasons
Per Michael E. Vigil J. (Sutin and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Rental Income: The district court erred in excluding all rental income from the mother’s gross income. Under the child support guidelines, rental income constitutes gross receipts, and only ordinary and necessary expenses can be deducted. Mortgage principal payments, which increase equity, are not deductible. The case was remanded for a proper determination of the mother’s gross income and recalculation of child support (paras 4-12).
Travel Expenses: The district court improperly denied the father credit for visitation-related travel expenses. The child support guidelines allow for such expenses to be considered, and the case was remanded for findings on this issue, including the parties’ agreement to offset arrears and future travel costs (paras 13-21).
Child Care Expenses: The district court did not err in allowing the mother to claim work-related child care expenses for a full year. The court found that the mother’s education was pursued in good faith to increase her earning capacity, which aligns with public policy encouraging parents to improve their financial situation for the benefit of their children (paras 22-27).
Attorney Fees: The award of attorney fees was justified due to the financial disparity between the parties and the father’s failure to pay child support. However, since the court’s decision was partially reversed, the amount of attorney fees was remanded for reconsideration (paras 28-30).