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 father's appeal against an order modifying his child support and entering judgment for child support arrears. The father disputed the income imputed to him by the district court, arguing that his income was not as high as determined and that his current wife, part owner of the business, financed the business and took out loans in her name. The father also corrected a mistake regarding his profession, stating he is not a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) as previously mentioned.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Mother): Argued that the father's gross monthly income should be imputed at no less than $5,000 per month, providing subpoenaed documents and witness testimony to support her claim.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contested the imputation of $5,000 per month in income to him by the district court, arguing that his wife owns part of the business and that the income referred to was total sales, not gross income. He also clarified that he is not a CPA.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in imputing income of $5,000 per month to the father.
• Whether the father properly preserved his arguments for appeal regarding the ownership and financial arrangements of his business.

Disposition

• The order modifying the father's child support and entering judgment for child support arrears was affirmed.
• The father's motion for stay was denied.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges James J. Wechsler, Celia Foy Castillo, and Michael D. Bustamante, found the father's arguments unpersuasive. The court noted the father did not preserve his arguments regarding business ownership and income for appeal. Despite acknowledging a mistake in referring to the father as a CPA, the court held there was no abuse of discretion in imputing $5,000 per month in income to the father. This decision was supported by findings that the father attempted to hide income and was less credible, alongside the mother's evidence and witness testimony. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision based on these considerations.