Reineke v. Reineke
and Cross-Appellant
v.
Ronald K. Reineke, Defendant, Appellant
and Cross-Appellee
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
| Appellant: | Kellington & Oster, P.C. | |
| Appellee: | Neubauer & Oster |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in its distribution of marital assets and marital debts between the respective parties?
II. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding spousal support to the Appellee?
III. Assuming the Supreme Court affirms the District Court's award of spousal support to the Appellee, was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding the Appellee $300.00 a month in spousal support beginning November 15, 2002 to November 15, 2006 or until the Appellee remarried?
IV. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in refusing to allow the children to testify as to their preferences and other relevant matters pertaining to custody and visitation?
V. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in denying the Appellant's Request for an Appointment of a Custody Investigator to investigate the best interests of the children relating to custody?
VI. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding custody of the two (2) children to the Appellee?
Issues in Appellant's Reply Brief
1. Whether the trial court awarded inadequate and limited rehabilitative support to a spouse in a long-term marriage, without consideration of permanent support
a. Whether the trial court erroneously applied the law of spousal support by failing to follow the law and evidence in setting an inadequate amount of spousal support for a limited duration
b. Whether the limitations on the amount and duration of spousal support are contrary to the evidence
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award Plaintiff attorney's fees and costs in the divorce.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Appellee and Cross-Appellant's issues on Cross-Appeal.
1. Whether the trial court awarded inadequate and limited rehabilitative support to a spouse in a long-term marriage, without consideration of permanent support.
a. The trial court erroneously applied the law of spousal support by failing to follow the law and evidence in setting an inadequate amount of spousal support for a limited duration.
b. The limitations on the amount and duration of spousal support are contrary to the evidence.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award Plaintiff attorney's fees and costs in the divorce.
B. Restatement of Appellant's issues on Appeal.
1. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in its distribution of marital assets and marital debt between respective parties?
2. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding spousal support to the Appellee?
3. Assuming the Supreme Court affirms the District Court's award of spousal support to the Appellee, was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding the Appellee $300.00 a month in spousal support beginning November 15, 2002, to November 15, 2006, or until the Appellee remarried?
4. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in refusing to allow the children to testify as to their preference and other relevant matters pertaining to custody and visitation?
5. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in denying the Appellant's Request for an Appointment of a Custody Investigator to investigate the best interests of the children relating to custody?
6. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding custody of the two (2) children to Appellee?
Add Docket 20030014 RSS