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 the Appellant ("Father") seeking a modification of child support due to a change in his financial circumstances. Father filed a motion on August 4, 2009, requesting the district court to reconsider some of its earlier orders, specifically asking for a protective order for the release of his financial information and a recalculation of child support. The district court found the issue of child support recalculation not ripe as Father had not yet provided his financial information. A stipulated protective order was filed, and the court ordered both parties to attempt to agree on a recalculated child support amount after the disclosure of financial information. Father later requested a hearing on the child support modification without indicating compliance with the court's order to provide financial information or engage in good-faith negotiation efforts with the Mother.

Procedural History

• District Court, November 30, 2009: Denied the child support modification portion of Father's motion due to non-compliance with the order to furnish financial information and engage in good-faith negotiations.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that his financial circumstances had changed, warranting a recalculation of child support. He also claimed compliance with the court's order by requesting a hearing.
• Appellee (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Father's request for a hearing on the child support modification portion of his motion to reconsider due to his alleged non-compliance with the court's order to provide financial information and engage in good-faith negotiations.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Father's request for a hearing on the child support modification.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (BUSTAMANTE, J., HANISEE, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Father failed to demonstrate compliance with the court's order to provide financial information and engage in good-faith negotiations with Mother. The court noted that Father's request for a hearing did not include any motion or exhibits indicating compliance or setting forth reasons for the court to conduct a hearing. The court also highlighted that Father did not inform the district court if or how circumstances had changed since the issue was deemed not ripe. Father's argument that child support can be modified based on a change in circumstances was acknowledged, but the court emphasized that this does not exempt him from the requirement to file a motion indicating compliance with the court's orders.