AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 father and mother regarding child support obligations and private school tuition for their two children following their divorce. The parents had previously agreed in a stipulated settlement that the father would pay child support and share the cost of private school tuition for one child. The father later objected to including private school tuition for the second child in the child support calculation and raised concerns about the calculation of his income, particularly the inclusion of overtime earnings.

Procedural History

• District Court, July 2004: The parties entered into a stipulated settlement agreement resolving most issues, including child support and private school tuition for one child, but left unresolved whether the second child should attend private school and how that would affect child support.
• Special Master, September 2004: The special master recommended that the second child attend private school and that the parents share the tuition cost, with adjustments to child support based on the parents' income and expenses.
• District Court, April 29, 2008: After multiple delays and judicial recusals, the district court adopted the special master’s recommendations and calculated child support based on the parties’ 2007 income.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that private school tuition for the second child should not be included in child support, that his overtime earnings should not be considered in the calculation, and that the special master acted improperly. He also sought attorney fees due to the mother’s alleged violation of a prior court order.
• Respondent (Mother): Supported the inclusion of private school tuition for the second child in child support and argued that the special master acted appropriately. She requested attorney fees for the appeal, citing economic disparity and her inability to afford the costs.

Legal Issues

• Was it proper to include private school tuition for the second child in the child support calculation?
• Should the father’s overtime earnings have been excluded from the child support calculation?
• Did the special master act improperly or exhibit bias in making recommendations?
• Was the district court’s adoption of the special master’s recommendations supported by substantial evidence?
• Should attorney fees be awarded to either party?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order adopting the special master’s recommendations and calculating child support based on the parties’ 2007 income.
• The Court remanded the issue of the mother’s request for attorney fees on appeal to the district court for determination.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Michael E. Vigil and Robert E. Robles, JJ., concurring):

• The father’s objections to including private school tuition for the second child in child support were rejected because the parties had previously agreed to share tuition costs for the first child, and the special master’s recommendation to extend this arrangement to the second child was supported by evidence.
• The inclusion of the father’s overtime earnings in the child support calculation was upheld because the income figure used was consistent with the parties’ prior agreement and was based on actual earnings, not imputed income.
• The special master’s conduct was found to be appropriate, as her comments were explanatory and not indicative of bias. The father’s claims of improper behavior were unsupported by the record.
• The district court’s adoption of the special master’s recommendations was supported by substantial evidence, including the parties’ income and expenses, and complied with child support guidelines.
• The denial of the father’s request for attorney fees was within the district court’s discretion, as the father failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
• The mother’s request for attorney fees on appeal was remanded to the district court for consideration, as the determination required fact-intensive analysis.