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 Petitioner and Respondent were married in 1990, had three children, and divorced nearly twenty years later in March 2010. Post-divorce, the Petitioner sought to modify child and spousal support, claiming inability to find employment and enrolling as a full-time student for an MBA to improve employability. The district court found the Petitioner voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, imputing income to him for support calculations. The Petitioner appealed the decision, challenging the district court's findings and conclusions on several grounds, including the imputation of income and calculation of support payments (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that modification of child and spousal support was appropriate due to his unemployment and current enrollment as a full-time MBA student. He contended that he had been unable to find employment of any sort and was making efforts to become employable (para 6).
• Respondent: Argued for modification of child support due to changes in the children's living arrangements and requested sole legal and physical custody of the two youngest children. Additionally, she filed a motion to show cause why the Petitioner should not be held in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining the Petitioner was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and in imputing income to him for the purposes of setting child support payments.
• Whether the district court erred in its calculation of child support arrearages and in ordering the Petitioner to obtain life insurance.
• Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting a modification of the amount of child support or spousal support (paras 9-10, 26).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Petitioner's motion for modification of child support and spousal support was affirmed. The case was remanded to the district court for entry of findings and conclusions related to child support payments and calculation of attorney fees (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not err in its determination that the Petitioner was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and in imputing income to him. The Petitioner's efforts to find employment and decision to pursue an MBA were not considered to be in good faith efforts towards employability. The district court's findings on the Petitioner's access to funds through the Heartland business and his ability to pay support were supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court also found no error in the district court's decision not to modify spousal support, as the Respondent was acting to improve her earning capacity consistent with the original support determination. However, the appellate court remanded the case for clarification on the calculation of child support payments and for the calculation of reasonable attorney fees, indicating some procedural issues in the district court's handling of evidence related to payments made by the Petitioner (paras 13-33).