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 an appeal by Eric Jones (Appellant) against an order that resolved his objections to a domestic relations hearing officer’s (DRHO) recommendations on enforcing a prior child support order. The appeal was triggered by procedural irregularities claimed by the Appellant, particularly around the scheduling and subsequent vacating of a hearing on child support, which he argued affected his substantive rights and confused the timeline for appealing the district court’s order adopting the DRHO’s recommendations (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Colfax County, June 7, 2021: Order adopting the DRHO’s July 24, 2018, recommendations on child support following remand from the Court of Appeals.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that procedural irregularities occurred below, resulting in the violation of his substantive rights. Specifically, he contended that the mistaken entry of a child support hearing by the district court led to confusion regarding the time for appealing the district court’s order, which constituted plain error affecting his right to appeal (paras 2-3).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court’s mistaken entry of a child support hearing resulted in confusion that affected the Appellant’s right to appeal and constituted plain error.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, with the Court of Appeals finding no basis to conclude that plain error affecting the Appellant’s right to appeal occurred (para 5).

Reasons

• Zachary A. Ives, Judge, with Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, and Jane B. Yohalem, Judge concurring, reasoned that the Appellant was notified that the hearing scheduled for July 9, 2021, was vacated and that no hearing before the DRHO was necessary, as the district court had already ruled upon the child support issue. The court found that even if there was an error by the district court that resulted in confusion regarding the time to file a notice of appeal, this did not excuse the Appellant’s failure to file a motion for an extension of time and a notice of appeal after becoming aware of the mistake. The Appellant was notified of the vacated hearing well within the time limit for filing a notice of appeal, and his failure to ever file a notice of appeal could not be attributed to the court’s error (paras 3-4).