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 divorce and child custody proceedings between Morris Estep (Husband) and Mary Estep (Wife), focusing on disputes over the relocation of their two children, child and spousal support, division of Husband's military retirement benefits and federal thrift savings plan, and attorney fees. The district court had initially awarded primary physical custody to Husband, allowing him to relocate the children to Texas. However, this decision was later reversed, awarding primary custody to Wife. The court also addressed financial matters, including child and spousal support, and the division of Husband's military and savings benefits (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, March 28, 2017: Set aside the marital settlement agreement, parenting plan, and final decree of dissolution of marriage due to Husband's deception, misrepresentation, and misconduct (para 3).
• District Court, July 23, 2018: Awarded primary physical custody of children to Wife, reversing a previous temporary custody order (para 4).
• District Court, October 4, 2018: Issued four final orders including an amended order dividing military retirement, an order regarding Husband's motion to alter orders, an order denying Husband's motion for extension of time to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and an order denying Husband's motion to reconsider (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Argued against the award of primary physical custody to Wife, the calculation and awarding of child support, the awarding of spousal support, the division of his military retirement benefits and federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), and the awarding of attorney fees to Wife (para 6).
• Wife: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in awarding primary physical custody to Wife.
• Whether the district court erred in calculating and awarding child support.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding spousal support.
• Whether the district court erred in dividing Husband’s military retirement benefits.
• Whether the district court erred in dividing Husband’s federal Thrift Savings Plan.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to Wife.

Disposition

• The district court's decisions on custody, child support, spousal support, division of military retirement benefits and TSP, and the awarding of attorney fees were affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Chief Judge Hanisee, with Judges Bogardus and Medina concurring, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its custody determination, noting the court's consideration of the children's best interests and substantial evidence supporting a change in circumstances (paras 7-11). The court also upheld the district court's decisions on child support, spousal support, division of military retirement benefits, and TSP, finding them supported by evidence and in accordance with the law (paras 12-23). Lastly, the court found no error in the awarding of attorney fees to Wife, noting the district court's consideration of financial disparity and other relevant factors (paras 24-27).