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 the Petitioner against the district court's order adopting the hearing officer's recommendations for retroactive child support. The dispute centers on the calculation of the Petitioner's child support obligation, specifically the total amount owed after accounting for previous payments made by the Petitioner. The hearing officer had recalculated the Petitioner's total support obligation, leading to a judgment against the Petitioner for $20,202.79.

Procedural History

• District Court of Lincoln County: The district court adopted the hearing officer's recommendations for retroactive child support, resulting in a judgment against the Petitioner.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Contested the total amount of child support owed, arguing that previous payments were not adequately considered. The Petitioner also challenged the hearing officer's findings regarding the parties' monthly earnings and imputed income used in calculating the support obligation. Additionally, the Petitioner objected to the hearing officer and district court's refusal to consider check stubs as proof of payment.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the hearing officer had the authority to unilaterally change the evidence introduced at court without allowing the other party an opportunity to challenge the evidence.
• Whether the district court and hearing officer erred in refusing to consider the Petitioner's check stubs as proof of past child support payments.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order adopting the hearing officer's recommendations for retroactive child support.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Zachary A. Ives, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Katherine A. Wray, considered the Petitioner's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive. The Court noted that the Petitioner raised new matters not included in the original docketing statement, specifically challenging the hearing officer's findings on monthly earnings and incomes. However, the Court denied any amendment to the docketing statement as the Petitioner failed to meet the required factors for amending, including demonstrating error or prejudice from the hearing officer's recalculations (paras 2-5). Regarding the Petitioner's challenge to the refusal to consider check stubs as proof of payment, the Court found the Petitioner's arguments vague and not responsive to the specific concerns identified, thus not sufficient to conclude an error by the hearing officer or district court (para 6). The Court also noted the Petitioner's failure to cite any authority supporting his claim regarding the refusal to credit insurance and car payments (para 7). Lastly, the Court observed that the Petitioner did not raise any objections to the proposed disposition of the jurisdictional issue, leading to its summary affirmation without further discussion (para 8).