AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over the modification of a child support decree from 2010 following the dissolution of marriage between Petitioner Colette C. Jury and Respondent Victor R. Jury. The district court denied the motion to modify the decree, finding no material and substantial changes in circumstances affecting the welfare of the children. The Petitioner contested the district court's determination of the parties' gross monthly incomes and, by extension, the child support obligations (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court, February 22, 2010: Issued the original child support decree following the dissolution of marriage, establishing child support obligations based on the parties' financial circumstances at the time (para 8).
• District Court, May 2, 2014: Denied both parties' motions to modify the 2010 decree, maintaining the original child support obligations despite claims of changed financial circumstances (para 20).
• District Court, June 10, 2014: Entered an order following a hearing on attorney fees and required submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (para 21).
• District Court, February 2, 2015: Awarded Respondent $1,500 in attorney fees for costs incurred in defending Petitioner’s motions and filing related motions during the appeal process (para 25).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the district court erred in its determination of the parties' gross monthly incomes, which affected the calculation of child support obligations. Contended that changes in the parties' financial circumstances warranted a modification of the 2010 decree (paras 2-3).
• Respondent: Maintained that even if there was a miscalculation of gross monthly incomes, the district court correctly determined that no material and substantial changes in circumstances had occurred to justify modifying the child support decree (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its calculation of the parties' gross monthly incomes for the purpose of determining child support obligations (para 3).
• Whether changes in the parties' financial circumstances since the 2010 decree constituted material and substantial changes warranting modification of the child support obligations (paras 3-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for recalculation of the parties' gross monthly incomes in accordance with the child support guidelines. The appellate court also instructed the district court to reconsider the modification of the child support decree if recalculation results in a deviation of more than twenty percent from the existing obligation, thereby presuming material and substantial changes in circumstances (paras 3-5, 7).

Reasons

• The appellate court found that the district court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines in calculating the parties' gross monthly incomes, potentially depriving the Petitioner of a presumption of material and substantial changes in circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory definitions and methodologies for calculating gross income and highlighted the inequity that could result from incorrect calculations. The appellate court also noted that the district court retains discretion in determining the basic child support amount but must do so transparently and in accordance with the guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees related to post-judgment enforcement actions but reversed other awards due to the reversal on the merits (paras 49-64).