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 a husband and wife regarding arrears in spousal and child support payments. The wife alleged that the husband failed to meet his support obligations as outlined in their final divorce decree. The husband claimed he made payments, including those related to a 2003 Pontiac Grand Am and improvements to the marital residence, and argued that certain properties were his sole and separate property. The wife disputed these claims, and their adult daughter provided testimony contradicting the husband’s assertions.
Procedural History
- District Court, July 24, 2008: The district court found the husband in arrears for child and spousal support, ordered the sale of certain properties, and denied the husband’s claims for credits related to car payments and property improvements.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Husband): Argued that the district court erred by failing to credit him for payments made on the 2003 Pontiac Grand Am, improvements to the marital residence, and by ordering the sale of the Roxanna lots, which he claimed were his sole and separate property. He also contended that his testimony was uncontradicted and should have been accepted as true.
- Respondent (Wife): Asserted that the husband failed to meet his support obligations and provided evidence of payments received. She argued that the car payments were not part of the support obligations and that the improvements to the residence were made with community funds. She also disputed the husband’s claim to the Roxanna lots, supported by testimony from their daughter.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in failing to credit the husband for payments made on the 2003 Pontiac Grand Am?
- Was the husband entitled to credit for improvements made to the marital residence?
- Did the district court err in ordering the sale of the Roxanna lots, which the husband claimed as his sole and separate property?
- Was the district court’s finding of arrears in spousal and child support supported by substantial evidence?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings on all issues except for a minor correction to the arrears amount, which was reduced by $400.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Fry CJ. and Vanzi J. concurring):
The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s findings, emphasizing that substantial evidence supported the rulings.
Car Payments: The court found that the husband’s payments on the 2003 Pontiac Grand Am were not part of his support obligations. The payments were either made out of self-interest to protect his credit or as a gift to his daughter, and thus, the district court properly denied credit for these payments.
Improvements to the Residence: The court determined that the materials used for the improvements were purchased with community funds during the marriage, as testified by the daughter. The district court was entitled to resolve conflicting testimony and deny the husband credit for these expenses.
Roxanna Lots: The husband failed to provide documentation supporting his claim that the lots were his sole and separate property. The daughter’s testimony contradicted his assertions, and the district court’s credibility findings were upheld.
Substantial Evidence: The court rejected the husband’s argument that his testimony was uncontradicted, noting that the wife’s evidence and the daughter’s testimony directly contradicted his claims. The district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Correction of Arrears: The wife conceded that a $400 spousal support payment was erroneously included in the arrears calculation. The court remanded the case to the district court to correct this error.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision with the noted correction.