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 a district court order that denied his motion for reconsideration regarding his child support obligations. The father sought to have his child support obligation adjusted retroactively to the date he became disabled, which he claims was in January 2006. He argued that his disability income was only $539 per month and that he had provided evidence of his disability at a hearing on January 25, 2010, which led to the modification of his child support obligation based on the date he provided proof of disability. Additionally, the father contended that a federal judge found him to be "retroactively disabled" and that he was promised in court that his child support arrears would be adjusted if he was found disabled. He also claimed that the mother received a payment of $938 that should have been credited towards his child support arrears.

Procedural History

• Dzula v. Dzula, 30,505: The father's appeal was dismissed as premature because he attempted to appeal the district court’s order before his motion for reconsideration was ruled upon.

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that his child support obligation should have been adjusted retroactively to when he became disabled in January 2006, claimed to have provided several motions and evidence of his disability income, and contended that he was promised an adjustment of suspended child support payment arrears if found disabled. He also claimed that a payment of $938 received by the mother should be credited towards his child support arrears and accused the judge of gender discrimination and not following the law.
• Mother: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the father's child support obligation should have been adjusted retroactively to the date he became disabled.
• Whether the father was promised an adjustment of suspended child support payment arrears if found to be disabled.
• Whether a payment of $938 received by the mother should be credited towards the father's child support arrears.
• Whether the judge demonstrated gender discrimination and refused to follow the law.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the decision of the district court, denying the father's motion for reconsideration.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (SUTIN, J., and VIGIL, J., concurring): The court found the father's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the district court's decision. It was noted that a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision but before a written order is filed shall be treated as filed on the day the order or judgment is filed, countering the father's claim for dismissal based on premature filing. The court also found that the father did not provide evidence of his disability until the January 25, 2010 hearing, and thus his child support obligation was modified based on the date he provided proof of disability, not retroactively to January 2006 as he had requested. The court pointed out that child support arrears were not subject to modification and that the father had not provided sufficient evidence that the mother received the $938 payment for child support or that it should be credited towards his arrears. Finally, the court dismissed the father's claims of gender discrimination and the judge's alleged refusal to follow the law, noting that such claims were not supported by the record or subject to review.