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 parties were married for nine years before the Wife filed for dissolution of marriage in June 2013. Following the filing, the district court scheduled a hearing for an interim order dividing income and expenses, which was later vacated at the parties' request due to their cooperation in sharing cash assets from the community business. The district court issued orders for the Husband to manage the community business and pay certain community debts, while the Wife was responsible for other specified expenses (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Wife: Argued that the district court erred by denying her request for interim division of income, disregarding an alleged stipulation regarding the value of a community business, and crediting the Husband with mortgage payments when calculating child support arrears (para 1).
• Husband: Contended that there was no stipulation regarding the value of the community business if free of debt and argued that the district court correctly calculated and awarded retroactive child support, including credit for mortgage payments (paras 11, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Wife's request for interim division of income.
• Whether the district court failed to honor a stipulation between the parties regarding the value of a community business.
• Whether the district court incorrectly calculated retroactive child support by crediting the Husband with mortgage payments made on community property.

Disposition

• The district court's decision on the first two issues was affirmed.
• The case was remanded for entry of a corrected order on the third issue regarding the calculation of child support arrears (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Stephen G. French, J. (Julie J. Vargas, J., Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring): The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Wife's request for interim division of income as it had issued orders that effectively divided the community income and expenses (paras 7-10). Regarding the alleged stipulation on the value of the community business, the Court concluded there was no enforceable agreement between the parties after accounting for debt, thus the district court did not err in its determination (paras 11-14). On the issue of crediting the Husband for mortgage payments in the calculation of child support arrears, the Court found that the district court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence as it failed to consider that these payments were made from community property. Consequently, the case was remanded to correct the order to credit the Husband only for cash payments made to the Wife, adjusting his total child support arrearages accordingly (paras 15-20).