Archive | Dissolution (child support)

RSS feed for this section

Marriage of Axelberg

Marriage of Axelberg, 2015 MT 110 (March 11, 2015) (Wheat, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court should have considered the net worth of the marital estate before dividing the property; (2) whether the district court erred in awarding Tracy certain pre-marital and post-separation property; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award maintenance to Delynn; (4) whether the district court erred by retroactively modifying Tracy’s obligations under the interim support agreement; and (5) whether the child support order was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) no; (4) no; and (5) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Delynn and Tracy married in 1998 and separated in 2010. Delyn filed for divorce in June 2011.…

In re the Marriage of Pfeifer

In re the Marriage of Pfeifer, 2013 MT 129 (May 14, 2013) (4-1) (McGrath, C.J., for the majority; Rice, J., dissenting)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by requiring Phillip to pay child support beyond the parties’ child’s 18th birthday; and (2) whether the district court should have applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude Susan’s claim for back child support.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) no, overruling Marriage of Shorten, 1998 MT 267.

Affirmed

In re the Marriage of Steab and Luna

In re the Marriage of Steab and Luna, 2013 MT 124 (May 7, 2013) (5-0) (Cotter, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court was required to issue written findings and conclusions to support its order on child support arrearages; (2) whether the district court erred in imposing a 12% annual interest rate on unpaid arrearages; (3) whether the district court erred in not imposing interest on Staeb’s unpaid arrearages, only Luna’s; and (4) whether the district court erred in taking judicial notice of a bankruptcy court order releasing Staeb from marital debt owed to Luna.

Short Answer: (1) No, as it was presented via a motion; (2) yes, as the statutory rate is 10%; (3) yes; and (4) no.…