Oldham v. Oldham
Daniel Sharpe Oldham, Plaintiff and Appellee
Rebecca Lyn Oldham, Defendant and Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Georgia Dawson
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||10/2003  Argument: 10/06/2003 Waived|
|ND cite:||2004 ND 62|
677 N.W.2d 196
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Did the District Court err in not placing limitations upon the visitation to be exercised by the non-custodial parent?
2. Did the District Court create an ambiguity relating to the exercise of visitation by the non- custodial parent?
3. Did the District Court properly value the marital property and debt?
4. Did the District Court err in dividing the marital property and debts?
5. Did the District Court err in determining the correct child support obligation?
6. Did the District Court err in not awarding temporary rehabilitative spousal support?
7. Did the District Court err in not awarding attorney fees and costs?
8. Did the District Court exceed her jurisdiction when awarding property owned by others?
9. Did the District Court err by not taking pre-divorce agreements with respect to income tax refunds and daycare provider expenses into account?
10. Did the District Court err by not recognizing Daniel's pre-marital debt of $10,000 to $12,000?
11. Did the District Court err by not ordering Daniel to provide health insurance?
12. Did the District Court err by ordering the filing of joint income tax returns?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Were the District Court's Findings and Conclusions that there was no basis for restricting Plaintiff's visitation with the minor child supported by the evidence?
1(a) Yes, the trial court properly concluded that Defendant had failed to prove a legitimate basis for restricting Plaintiff's visitation with the minor child. Defendant failed to prove that Plaintiff's visitation would endanger the child. The trial court's decision with regard to visitation is a finding of fact entitled to deference upon review unless it is clearly erroneous. Because there is evidence in the record to reasonably support the trial court's visitation determination, it is not clearly erroneous. N.D.C.C. 14-05-22(2), McDowell v. McDowell, 2001 N.D. 176, 635 N.W.2d 139.
2. Were the district court's valuations of the marital estate and division of marital assets and debts supported by the evidence and entitled to deference upon review?
2(a) Yes, the trial court's valuations of property and allocation of property and debts are reasonably supported by the evidence and entitled to deference upon review. Valuation and division of marital property constitute questions of fact entitled to deference upon review unless they are clearly erroneous. The parties disagreed and the evidence was in conflict as to valuations on several assets. The trial court made various credibility determinations, and Defendant once again is asking this Court to substitute its own credibility determination in violation of existing and long-standing precedent. N.D.C.C. 14-05-24, Kautzmann v. Kautzmann. 1998 N.D. 192, 585 N.W.2d 561
3. Did the district court properly determine Plaintiff's child support and medical support obligation under the North Dakota Century Code and the North Dakota Child Support Guidelines?
3(a) Yes, the trial court properly determined Plaintiff's net income and his child support obligation under the North Dakota Child Support guidelines and properly concluded that Plaintiff did not owe arrears. Child support determinations involve mixed questions of fact and law and are entitled to deference upon review absent a showing that they are not reasonably supported by the evidence or are based upon legal error. McDowell v. McDowell, 2001 N.D. 176, 635 N.W.2d 139. A review of the record demonstrates that the trial court did include Plaintiff's income from all sources, deducted various amounts from Plaintiff's income as required by the guidelines, and properly determined Plaintiff's net income for purposes of child support and his obligation under the guidelines.
3(b) Furthermore, because Defendant has health insurance available to her at nominal cost, and because Plaintiff is reimbursing her 100% of the premium attributable to the minor child, the trial court did not err as a matter of law by failing to order Plaintiff to provide health insurance through his employer. N.D.C.C. 14-09-08.10
4. Did the district court properly deny Defendant's request for temporary rehabilitative spousal support?
4(a) Yes, the evidence presented demonstrated that this was a short term marriage of only three years, Defendant has degree in elementary education and coaching was employed full time with the Fargo School District in her chosen profession throughout the marriage, and after payment of child support, the parties had comparable income. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she qualified as a disadvantaged spouse under existing precedent. McDowell v. McDowell, 2001 N.D. 176, 635 N.W.2d 139.
|Add Docket 20030072 RSS|
|1||03/19/2003||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/14/2003|
|2||03/19/2003||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 03/14/2003|
|3||04/01/2003||TRANSCRIPT DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2003|
|4||04/03/2003||DISK - TRA of Feb 11, 2003 (e-mailed)|
|5||04/02/2003||Copy of letter dated 4-01-03 from Kelly Kroke, Ct. Reporter, to Mr. Garaas re advance payment|
|6||04/09/2003||RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 05/03/2003|
|7||05/05/2003||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT (Kelly A. Kroke)|
|8||05/05/2003||ACTION BY TRIAL COURT (MTR). Granted: 06/12/2003|
|9||05/27/2003||TRANSCRIPT DATED November 15, 2002|
|10||05/28/2003||DISK - TRA Nov. 15, 2002|
|11||06/03/2003||RECORD ON APPEAL (2 Volumes) not forwarded with the record were Nos. 69 and 85 (Steno Notes)|
|14||07/08/2003||DISK - ATB|
|16||08/11/2003||E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)|
|17||08/13/2003||Proof of Service of AEB on opposing counsel dated 8-11-03|
|18||08/13/2003||Payment of $25 fee for filing electronic AEB (Receipt #15184)|
|20||09/02/2003||DISK of RYB|
|21||09/16/2003||S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY|
|22||10/06/2003||APPEARANCES: submitted on briefs|
|23||10/06/2003||ARGUED: submitted on briefs (Vol. Y; Page 151)|
|24||11/12/2003||Notice of filing bankruptcy by Daniel Oldham (letter dated 11/10/2003 w/ attachments from J. Garaas|
|25||01/02/2004||MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL & AFFIDAVIT OF MELINDA WEERTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION|
|26||01/02/2004||NO ACTION TAKEN (Mot/Withdraw)|
|27||02/10/2004||Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 2-9-04 (Entry Nos. 105-112)|
|28||03/24/2004||Ltr fm Melinda Hanson Weerts stating Mr. Oldham's bankruptcy has been finalized so Ct. can proceed|
|31||03/25/2004||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|32||03/25/2004||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|33||03/29/2004||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|35||04/27/2004||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|36||02/08/2010||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|