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 petitioner, Theresa Grant, appealing a district court order that adopted a domestic relations hearing officer’s report and denied her motion to reconsider. The appeal centers around the modification of child support, with specific issues related to the imputation of income to the petitioner, the acceptance of new evidence regarding her disability, and allegations of misrepresentations by the respondent’s counsel.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the district court erred by prematurely issuing an order, imputing her to minimum wage for child support modification purposes, refusing to accept new evidence of her disability, being influenced by respondent’s counsel’s misrepresentations, and reprimanding her trial counsel.
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the petitioner's due process rights by prematurely issuing an order.
• Whether the district court erred in imputing the petitioner to minimum wage for the purpose of determining the need to modify child support.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to accept new evidence regarding the petitioner's disability.
• Whether the district court was adversely affected by the respondent’s counsel's claims and misrepresentations.
• Whether the reprimand of the petitioner’s trial counsel constituted reversible error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

Reasons

• Megan P. Duffy, Kristina Bogardus, and Shammara H. Henderson, Judges, concurred in the opinion. The court found that the petitioner did not file any objections before the specified dates and acknowledged the district court addressed her objections, thus affirming the district court's decision on due process grounds (para 2). The court also noted that it does not reweigh evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, referring the petitioner to the analysis in the notice of proposed disposition regarding the imputation of income and the acceptance of new evidence (paras 3-4). Regarding the new evidence presented by the petitioner, the court found it either was not new or could not have demonstrated that the petitioner was incapable of earning minimum wage, thus affirming the district court's findings (paras 4-7). The court also concluded that the petitioner's arguments regarding the influence of respondent’s counsel's misrepresentations and the reprimand of her trial counsel did not provide grounds for reversal (paras 9-10).