Search Tips

Gooss v. Gooss, et al.

Docket No. 20200076
Oral Argument: Monday, September 21, 2020 9:30 AM

Docket Info

Title
Vickie M. Gooss, nka Vickie M. Lenard, Plaintiff
v.
Jeffrey A. Gooss, Defendant and Appellant
and
State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest
and Appellee
Case Type
CIVIL APPEAL : CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other)
Appeal From
Case No. 2018-DM-00044
South Central Judicial District, Mercer County
David E. Reich
Oral Argument 9/21/2020

Parties' Statement of Issues

  • Appellant

    1. Whether the district court erred in determining that it had jurisdiction.
    2. Whether the district court erred in requiring Defendant to pay child support.
    3. Whether the district court erred in determining the amount of deviation for visitation travel expenses.

  • Appellee 1

    1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify Mr. Gooss' child support obligation.
    2. Whether it was inequitable for the district court to require Mr. Gooss to pay child support.
    3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining the amount of the deviation for visitation travel expenses.


Summary

Jeffrey Gooss appeals after the district court modified his child support obligation.

Jeffrey Gooss and Vickie Gooss, now known as Vickie Lenard, divorced in Nevada in 2004. The Nevada district court awarded Lenard primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor child. The court awarded Jeffrey Gooss parenting time. In 2013, the Nevada court amended the judgment. The amended judgment required Jeffrey Gooss to pay all travel expenses for the exercise of parenting time after March 2013, and specified these travel expenses would constitute child support. Lenard later moved to South Dakota with the child, and Gooss moved to North Dakota. The State of North Dakota reviewed and filed a motion to modify Gooss’ child support obligation, and the district court ordered the modification.

On appeal, Jeffrey Gooss argues the child support modification altered the custody order and, as a result, the district court did not have jurisdiction to order the modification. He also argues it was inequitable for the court to order the modification and the court erred in its determination of the amount of deviation for visitation travel expenses.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
06/10/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
07/10/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Jennifer M. Gooss - 07971
APPELLEE CHILD SUP. ENFORCEMENT Sheila K Keller - 04509

(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)

Seq. # Filing Date Description Attachment
1 03/09/2020 NOTICE OF APPEAL : 03/09/2020
2 03/09/2020 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 03/18/2020
3 03/13/2020 Rec'd $125 filing fee
4 03/17/2020 NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.
5 03/17/2020 Notice served on Jennifer M. Gooss, Sheila K. Keller and Vickie M. Lenard
6 04/08/2020 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED APRIL 7, 2020 (ENTRY NOS. 1-84)
7 05/01/2020 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2019
8 05/01/2020 TRANSCRIPT C.O.S.
9 06/10/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
10 06/10/2020 APPELLANT APPENDIX
11 06/10/2020 Oral Argument Request by Appellant
12 06/12/2020 Rec'd 5 copies of ATB & 4 copies of ATA from CSD
13 07/10/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View
14 07/10/2020 Oral Argument Request by Appellee
15 07/14/2020 Rec'd 5 copies of AEB from CS
16 08/13/2020 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
17 09/21/2020 APPEARANCES: Jennifer M. Gooss; Sheila K. Keller
18 09/21/2020 ARGUED: Jennifer M. Gooss; Sheila K. Keller
19 09/21/2020 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST