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 between Eric Jones (Petitioner-Appellee) and Becky Jones (Respondent-Appellant) regarding objections to the hearing officer’s recommendations on child support. The district court had entered an order adopting some of the hearing officer's recommendations but also reducing the amount of child support suggested for the Petitioner to pay. The Respondent filed a pleading challenging the basis for the Petitioner's objections to these recommendations after the district court's order was entered.

Procedural History

• District Court of Colfax County, August 7, 2018: The district court resolved objections to the hearing officer's recommendations regarding child support, modifying the suggested amount of child support the Petitioner was to pay.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court's order was final and that she should begin appellate proceedings. She also claimed she was not given the legally allocated time to object to the Petitioner’s objections to the hearing officer’s recommendations.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order resolving objections to the hearing officer's recommendations on child support constitutes a final, appealable order.
• Whether the Respondent was allocated appropriate time to object to the Petitioner’s objections to the hearing officer’s recommendations.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, Megan P. Duffy, and Zachary A. Ives, unanimously agreed to dismiss the appeal. They found the appeal to be premature because a timely motion to reconsider had been filed by the Respondent, which the district court had not yet ruled on, thus retaining jurisdiction over the matter (para 2). The court noted that the Respondent was informed she could respond to the hearing officer’s recommendation and did so, but her objections were filed after the district court had already made a decision, leading the court to construe them as a motion to reconsider (para 3). The court also mentioned that the Respondent could file a second appeal after a final decision on her motion for reconsideration is made by the district court (para 3).