Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirms an order reinstating a $1,500 monthly upward deviation from presumptive child support guidelines and a requirement that the obligor maintain $750,000 in life insurance. The court holds that the district court’s supplemental findings adequately supported deviations based on the child’s medical and developmental needs and her prior standard of living. The court also concludes that reinstating the insurance obligation complied with the limited scope of the prior remand because the child support amount remained unchanged.

Holdings

1. An upward deviation is permissible when it is in the child's best interest and one or more enumerated criteria under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2) is met. The district court's findings that deviation served L.R.K.'s needs and preserved her prior standard of living were sufficiently explicit.
2. The district court's findings sufficiently supported the $750 monthly needs-based deviation, and the finding was not clearly erroneous because evidence supported the amount.
3. The district court's findings sufficiently supported the $750 monthly standard-of-living deviation, and the finding was not clearly erroneous because evidence supported the amount.
4. The district court properly reinstated the $750,000 life-insurance obligation because the amount of child support remained unchanged and the reinstatement was within the limited scope of the remand.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court's supplemental findings sufficiently explained why an upward deviation from the presumptive child-support guideline amount was in L.R.K.'s best interest.
2. Whether the district court's findings sufficiently supported the $750 monthly needs-based component of the upward deviation.
3. Whether the district court's findings sufficiently supported the $750 monthly standard-of-living component of the upward deviation.
4. Whether the district court properly reinstated the $750,000 life-insurance obligation after remand.
5. Whether the mandate rule barred relitigation of issues resolved in the first appeal.

Disposition

affirmed