Martiré v. Martiré

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded an amended divorce judgment concerning spousal support and child support. The Court held that the district court properly declined to modify spousal support because no formal motion had been filed, but erred in calculating child support by failing to determine the obligor's net income, mechanically applying a multiplier, and failing to make findings regarding the child's appropriate needs. The Court also held that the district court properly imputed income to the obligee but incorrectly added her actual earnings to, rather than subtracting them from, the imputed income.

Holdings

1. The district court did not err in refusing to address Sandra's request to modify spousal support because she did not file a formal motion or provide the required notice.
2. The district court erred as a matter of law by failing to determine Michael's net income under the Child Support Guidelines before determining an upward deviation from the presumptive amount.
3. The district court erred by mechanically applying the 1.638 multiplier from a prior proceeding without making findings concerning the child's appropriate needs and balancing those needs against the proposed upward deviation.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Sandra voluntarily underemployed and imputing income to her.
5. The district court erred as a matter of law by adding Sandra's actual earnings to her imputed income rather than subtracting the actual earnings from the imputed amount as required by the Guidelines.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred by refusing to modify spousal support when Sandra had not filed a formal motion or provided the notice required for motions.
2. Whether the district court properly calculated Michael's child-support obligation when it failed to determine his net income and mechanically applied a prior multiplier without findings concerning the child's appropriate needs.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding Sandra voluntarily underemployed and imputing income to her.
4. Whether the district court properly calculated Sandra's imputed income by adding her actual earnings to the imputed amount rather than subtracting them.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded