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 Kathy Umbreit (Mother) and Steven Umbreit (Father) regarding child support arrearages following their divorce and the establishment of Father's child support obligation. Father was initially ordered to pay $300 or 25% of his net pay per month in child support. Years later, Father filed a motion to revoke child support, claiming the child was self-supporting, while Mother counterclaimed for child support arrearages and failure to provide financial documentation. Prior to this, Mother had filed for child support arrearages in Texas, claiming approximately $36,000 in arrearages. The Texas proceedings were dismissed with Mother retaining the right to enforce any judgment against Father.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the child had become self-supporting and thus sought to revoke child support. He also contended that he had paid all due child support until his motion to revoke and provided evidence of certain payments made between November 2003 and October 2008. Father further argued that he could not provide evidence of payments made between 2000 and 2004 due to the bank's record retention policy and claimed Mother had waived her right to child support for those years.
• Mother: Denied that the child was self-supporting and counterclaimed for child support arrearages, asserting Father failed to provide financial documentation of his yearly income. She also denied receiving any child support payments between 2000 and 2004 and argued that Father owed more than the $300 self-supporting amount for those months based on his net income.

Legal Issues

• Whether Father fulfilled his child support obligations from May 2000 through July 2004.
• The appropriate interest rate to be applied to unpaid child support arrearages.
• Whether the district court erred by not applying the appropriate statute of limitations or equitable doctrines in determining unpaid child support.

Disposition

• The district court's determination of Father's delinquent child support arrearages as $19,749.20 was affirmed.
• The district court's application of an annual interest rate of 8.75% on unpaid child support was reversed, and the case was remanded for the order to be amended to an interest rate of 4%.
• The district court's decision regarding the statute of limitations and equitable doctrines was affirmed.

Reasons

• Judges Timothy L. Garcia, Cynthia A. Fry, and Roderick T. Kennedy concurred in the decision. The court found that it was Father's burden to prove he made all required child support payments. Due to the lack of documentary evidence for payments from May 2000 through July 2004, the court resolved the dispute in favor of Mother, affirming the arrearages amount as $19,749.20. Regarding the interest rate on unpaid child support, the court agreed with Father that the rate should be 4% instead of 8.75%, reversing and remanding for amendment of the judgment. Lastly, the court affirmed the district court's decision on the application of the statute of limitations and equitable doctrines, as Father did not dispute the court's analysis in his memorandum in opposition.