Hilgers v. Hilgers
Brenda M. Hilgers, Plaintiff and Appellee
Douglas G. Hilgers, Defendant and Appellant
North Central Judicial District,
Judge Gary A. Holum
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||02/2004  Argument: 02/18/2004|
|ND cite:||2004 ND 95|
679 N.W.2d 447
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1.In the face of Heinz V. Heinz, 2001 ND 147632 N.W.," "A court errs as a matter of law when it fails to comply with the child support guidelines when determining the obligor's child support obligation", Is the support Order, with denial of modification, lawful and in the best interest of the child?
2.In the face of Schiff v. Schiff and NDCC 14-05-24, Is the trial Courts determination, with the all to apparent, accrual of huge arrearages, indicating the gross change of circumstance from the original determination, a significant change of circumstance and clearly erroneous?
3.Are the Orders of the trial Court, with respects to the Support orders fair and equitable, under North Dakota law?
4.Subject to Rule 60 NDCP, (b), (vi) and with authority in Kopp v. Kopp, is it just discretion to provide relief of this spousal support order because it would be manifestly unjust to enforce it.
5.Does in comport to the U.S. and N.D. Constitutional requirement of Access to the Courts, to close the door to review and modification of domestic issues simply because the case file resides there, especially when a request to return relevant portions is requested?
6.In consideration of the Courts long held social policy to foster and fair dealings with respects to domestic and divorces cases and to avoid the rancor of ongoing disputes: Does the case of Hilgers v. Hilgers and the Courts rulings, comport with such well-intentioned policy?
7.Is the pro se Defendant/Appellee any less deserving of just, fair and equitable treatment than one represented by trained council?
8.Does this determination or any past determination by the Court, of spousal support, considered the supporting spouses needs or ability to pay, as considered in McDowell v McDowell.
9.Have these judgements as posed to C.S.E.U. and the Courts and applied in determination and withholding, ever complied with the standard in Heinz v. Heinz;" Spousal support payments must be included in computing monthly net income for child support purposes"?
10.Although never permitted in consideration of the spousal support judgements, even though incurring a second heart attack just 2 weeks before the secreted " default hearing", never the less, having a impact on the supporting spouses needs, his ability to earn the inflated amounts wages as sighted in the judgment with the telling arrears amounts, and the necessity going with out the medical care required, constitute a material change of circumstance? Could it have been intended, by the trial Court to establish a support obligation so far in excess of Doug's actual earnings, as to cause these arrears?
11. Is it just and equitable to deny Doug the option of a Court ordered plan to pay arrears in a fashion that would leave him sufficient income to afford a healthy life style for him and his son and to, at least, have some opportunity to afford some medical care for his coronary artery disease: This as afforded by Statute?
12.As previously siting the indication for accurate wage determinations for refinement of the child support amounts as "minimum". Does the Court err in not fulfilling the discovery requests of the Court, for Brenda's wage information or denying any input from past wages that Doug has offered?
13.Does the language of the decree, awarding Spousal support" until Birch is nineteen or graduated from high school", In light of no other explanation re: Ruff-Fisher standards or other relevant factors: confer upon Brenda the right to be owed spousal support, even after not supporting Birch when out of the home and the circumstances Birch was in, warranting a custody change? Without even just visitation granted the appellant, did this Court ever contemplate that Doug would gain custody of his Son?
14.Does the statement of arrears offered to the Court (no service of the appellant) also indicate the thousands of dollars with constant withholding of the Appellant's wages and paid voluntarily over five years? Does it show the huge payments to Brenda from his tax interceptions? Does it show that arrears occurred in the amount of $940 the first week of withholding « of his full time wages? Does it show the disproportionate amount of arrears accrued to spousal support? Does it demonstrate the arrears when Doug was paying 30% more child support than "Guidelines " permitted? Does it show the amounts collected by Brenda when neither child was living in her home? Does it show the amounts absorbed by the neighbors that housed and fed Birch, for months, when he couldn't live in his home? Does it show the amount's that Doug has had to expend from his meager resources to contest the judgements, for years? Does it show the amounts that Doug has had to expend to challenge the multiple contempt efforts directed at him when he could not possibly pay these amounts?
15.Is spousal support, under Law, authorized to punish and condemn a civil litigant?
16.The appellant having specifically requesting Rule 52" to specify the facts and state separately in conclusions law thereon," as to the denial of is petitions, and receiving no commensurate response, with the demand. How can a petitioner determine if err has occurred if there is no findings of fact or law as to be challenged as erroneous?
|Add Docket 20030252 RSS|
|1||09/02/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/02/2003|
|2||10/02/2003 RECORD ON APPEAL (includes exhibits and transcript of 4-18-01 & 7-13-01 in one volume)|
|3||10/08/2003 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (letter rec'd 10-8-03)|
|4||10/08/2003 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 11/11/2003|
|5||11/07/2003 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (e-mailed letter dated 11-06-03 from Doug Hilgers)|
|6||11/07/2003 E-FILED MOTION|
|7||11/07/2003 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MAT). Granted: 12/11/2003|
|8||12/10/2003 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|9||12/16/2003 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|10||12/29/2003 Corrected TOA for ATB|
|11||12/29/2003 DISK - atb|
|12||01/12/2004 Faxed copies of letters from Doug Hilgers regarding oral arguments, etc.|
|13||01/27/2004 S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY|
|14||02/18/2004 APPEARANCES: submitted on brief under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2)|
|15||02/18/2004 ARGUED: submitted on brief under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) (Vol. Y; Page 205)|
|16||05/05/2004 DISPOSITION (and Supervision Ordered): DISMISSED|
|17||05/05/2004 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|18||05/05/2004 At the direction of the Court no costs are to be taxed in this appeal|
|19||05/07/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|21||06/01/2004 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|22||11/22/2010 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|