Nuveen v. Nuveen
Michiel James Nuveen, Plaintiff and Appellant
Elizabeth Ann Nuveen, Defendant and Appellee
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||10/2012  Argument: 10/08/2012 2:45pm|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 260|
825 N.W.2d 863
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in deviating from the presumptive amount of child support to be paid from the plaintiff to the defendant where there was no correlation between the amount of the deviation and the appropriate needs of the children for increased support.
II. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in ordering the deviation after having offset the split primary residential responsibility child support obligations.
III. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Michiel's Rule 59 motion because the decision to deviate was induced by a misapplication of the law.
REPLY BRIEF ISSUES
I.Whether the proper standard of review of the district court's decision to deviate from the presumptive amount of child support with no correlation to those needs and the amount of the deviation is de novo.
II.Whether the proper standard of review of the district court's decision to determine the appropriate amount to deviate following the offset of the split residential responsibility child support obligations is de novo.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. The District Court Did Not Err In Providing A Deviation From The Guidelines Support Amount In Light Of Dr. Nuveen's Income And The Best Interests Of The Children.
II. The District Court Did Not Err By Ordering The Deviation Or Departure Through An Offset.
III. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying The Rule 59 Motion.
|Add Docket 20120246 RSS|
|1||05/16/2012||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/14/2012|
|2||05/16/2012||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 05/14/2012|
|3||05/25/2012||Originally certified in 20120080, will be retained for this appeal|
|4||06/18/2012||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 06/15/2012 (ENTRY NOS.329-352)|
|5||06/21/2012||TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 2, 2011, & C.O.S.|
|6||06/21/2012||DISK-tra (12/2/11) e-mailed|
|7||06/29/2012||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (12/23/10, does not affect briefing schedule): 06/29/2012|
|8||07/24/2012||Rec'd Order Granting Extension of Time to File Transcript (12/23/10) to July 28, 2012|
|9||07/24/2012||2nd ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED July 24, 2012 (ENTRY NOS.353-366)|
|10||07/27/2012||Acknowledgment of OTR from Michelle Bredemeier|
|11||07/28/2012||TRANSCRIPT DATED 12/23/2010 & C.O.S.|
|12||07/30/2012||DISK-Transcript dated 12/23/2010 (e-mailed)|
|17||07/30/2012||Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt @21277)|
|18||07/31/2012||3rd ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED July 31, 2012 (ENTRY NOS.367-373)|
|19||08/07/2012||Rec'd 7 copies of ATB from CSD|
|20||08/07/2012||Rec'd 6 copies of ATA from CSD|
|21||08/23/2012||APPELLEE BRIEF (PDF)|
|25||08/27/2012||Rec'd $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #21471)|
|26||08/28/2012||Rec'd copies of AEB from CSD|
|27||08/28/2012||Rec'd copies of AEA from CSD|
|30||09/07/2012||Received 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating|
|31||09/17/2012||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|32||10/02/2012||ROA certified in 20120080 transferred to this appeal, including Docket #91 sent by U.S. Mail|
|33||10/08/2012||APPEARANCES: Patti Jensen/Scott Jensen|
|34||10/08/2012||ARGUED: P. Jensen/S. Jensen|
|35||10/08/2012||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|37||12/18/2012||UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|38||12/18/2012||CONCUR IN THE RESULT: Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/RES|
|39||12/18/2012||COSTS ON APPEAL TAXED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE|
|40||12/19/2012||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|42||01/30/2013||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|