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 dispute over child support between Wendy Fletcher, now known as Wendy Smith, and Harold Ray Fletcher. The core of the dispute is the district court's order setting ongoing child support and entering judgment for retroactive child support.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court should have applied Georgia law, which he contends does not allow for retroactive child support awards. He also referred to his docketing statement requesting case law to show that the imposed $19,000 was lawful (para 2).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not applying Georgia law, which allegedly does not allow for retroactive child support awards.
• Whether the issues regarding jurisdiction and the application of Georgia law were preserved for appellate review.
• Whether the respondent-appellant abandoned certain issues by failing to argue them in his memorandum in opposition.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order setting ongoing child support and entering judgment for retroactive child support (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, J., with Kristina Bogardus, J., and Megan P. Duffy, J., concurring:
  The Court found that the respondent-appellant failed to preserve the issue of applying Georgia law for review by not invoking a ruling by the district court on this matter. The Court also noted that even if the respondent had requested the district court to cite case law to support its decision, it would not have sufficiently alerted the district court to his claim that Georgia law should apply (paras 2-3).
  The Court dismissed the respondent-appellant's argument that Georgia had jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter, noting that he had stipulated that the district court had jurisdiction. Furthermore, the respondent-appellant provided no authority to support his contention that Georgia law should apply, leading the Court to affirm the district court's decision on this issue (para 4).
  The Court deemed the first and second issues asserted by the respondent-appellant in his docketing statement as abandoned due to his failure to include further argument on these issues in his memorandum in opposition. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law (para 5).