Harris v. Carter

• Decision Date: 16 July 2008
• Docket Number: No. 34002.,34002.
• Citation: 146 Idaho 22,189 P.3d 484
• Parties: Marina HARRIS, f/k/a Marina Carter, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Austin Roger CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

189 P.3d 484

146 Idaho 22

Marina HARRIS, f/k/a Marina Carter, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Austin Roger CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 34002.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

July 16, 2008.

Austin R. Carter, Pocatello, pro se appellant.

Shan B. Perry of Holden, Kidwell, Hahn & Crapo, P.L.L.C., Idaho Falls, for respondent.

LANSING, Judge.

Austin Roger Carter ("Roger") appeals from the district court's order on intermediate appeal, which affirmed the magistrate's order on Roger's petition to modify a prior child custody and support order. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Roger and respondent Marina Harris ("Marina") were divorced in 1999 in the state of Montana. Marina was given primary physical custody of their two children. Several years after the divorce, Roger filed a petition in Bonneville County magistrate court to modify the divorce decree concerning matters of child custody and child support. Through mediation the parties reached agreement on all matters except the amount of child support. As to child support, they agreed only that support would be calculated under the Idaho Child Support Guidelines¹ and based upon the respective income of the parties as determined under the Guidelines. The magistrate took evidence at a hearing where both parties testified. The magistrate's decision increased the child support to be paid by Roger from $400 to $578 per month. Roger appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed and awarded attorney fees against Roger under Idaho Code § 12-121. Roger appeals pro se.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a decision of the district court acting in its appellate capacity, we examine the record from the magistrate court to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings. If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom, and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we will likewise affirm the district court's decision. Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008); Nicholls v. Blaser, 102 Idaho 559, 633 P.2d 1137 (1981).

The decision of the trial court on a motion to modify child support is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. Noble v. Fisher, 126 Idaho 885, 888, 894 P.2d 118, 121 (1995); Kornfield v. Kornfield, 134 Idaho 383, 385, 3 P.3d 61, 63 (Ct.App.2000); Atkinson v. Atkinson, 124 Idaho 23, 25, 855 P.2d 484, 486 (Ct.App.1993). As set forth in Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991), we examine (1) whether the trial court correctly perceived this issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the applicable legal standards; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. An abuse of discretion will be found if the magistrate failed to give consideration to relevant factual circumstances, Rohr v. Rohr, 128 Idaho 137, 141, 911 P.2d 133, 137 (1996); Yost v. Yost, 112 Idaho 677, 680, 735 P.2d 988, 991 (1987); Margairaz v. Siegel, 137 Idaho 556, 558, 50 P.3d 1051, 1053 (Ct.App. 2002), or if the magistrate's findings are not supported by the evidence, Biggers v. Biggers, 103 Idaho 550, 555, 650 P.2d 692, 697 (1982); Rohr v. Rohr, 126 Idaho 1, 3, 878 P.2d 175, 177 (Ct.App.1994).

Roger's briefs on this appeal attempt to raise numerous issues for our decision. Many of them we do not address for at least one of the following reasons. First, many of the issues that Roger argues to this Court were not raised before the magistrate. It is well established that an appellate court of this state will not consider issues that were not presented to the trial court. State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195, 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992); State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 676, 115 P.3d 764, 767 (Ct.App.2005). Second, some of the issues now argued by Roger may have been presented to the trial court but were not raised in the intermediate appeal to the district court. Where an intermediate appeal has occurred, only issues raised in that intermediate appeal may be brought forward to a higher appellate court. See Stonecipher v. Stonecipher, 131 Idaho 731, 737, 963 P.2d 1168, 1174 (1998); State v. Bailey, 117 Idaho 941, 943, 792 P.2d 966, 968 (Ct.App.1990). Third, some of Roger's arguments are not supported by any relevant legal authority. This Court will not address issues for which the appellant has not provided relevant legal authority. Cowan v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont County, 143 Idaho 501, 508,148 P.3d 1247, 1254 (2006). Accordingly, we address those issues presented by Roger that were both preserved in the proceedings below and adequately supported by at least some authority.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Compelling Reasons to Consider Marina's Interest in New Husband's Income

Roger first argues that the magistrate erred in failing to consider Marina's community property interest in her new husband's substantial income for purposes of computing Marina's share of the child support obligations.

At the time of the evidentiary hearing, Marina was voluntarily unemployed and had no personal income. She testified that if she were to work, she could earn no more than $10 per hour, and she took the position that this amount should be imputed to her as potential income pursuant to Idaho Child Support Guideline 6(c)(1). Roger, conversely, contended that income attributed to Marina should include her community property interest in her new husband's income, which exceeded $400,000 per year. The magistrate rejected Roger's argument and imputed to Marina only potential earnings of $20,000 per year. On intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate. Roger claims error.

Both Idaho Code § 32-706(1)(b) and Idaho Child Support Guideline 6(a)(3) preclude inclusion of a parent's community property interest in the income of a new spouse in determining the parent's income for purposes of calculating child support obligations unless "compelling reasons exist." Specifically, I.C. § 32-706(1)(b) provides that in determining parental child support obligations, consideration should be given to:

(b) The financial resources, needs, and obligations of both the custodial and noncustodial parents which ordinarily shall not include a parent's community property interest in the financial resources or obligations of a spouse who is not a parent of the child, unless compelling reasons exist.

In accord, Idaho Child Support Guideline 6(a)(3) provides in part:

(3) Income of Parents and Spouse. Gross income ordinarily shall not include a parent's community property interest in the financial resources or obligations of a spouse who is not a parent of the child, unless compelling reasons exist.

Neither the statute nor the guideline, nor any reported decisions of Idaho appellate courts, identify factors or circumstances that might constitute or contribute to "compelling reasons" to consider a new spouse's income.

Determining the meaning of a statute and its application is a matter of law over which this Court exercises free review. Idaho Cardiology Assoc., P.A. v. Idaho Physicians Network, Inc., 141 Idaho 223, 225, 108 P.3d 370, 372 (2005). In construing a statute, our objective is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Adamson v. Blanchard, 133 Idaho 602, 605, 990 P.2d 1213, 1216 (1999); Kootenai Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Washington Water Power Co., 127 Idaho 432, 435, 901 P.2d 1333, 1336 (1995); Carpenter v. Twin Falls County, 107 Idaho 575, 582, 691 P.2d 1190, 1197 (1984). The legislature's intent is ascertained from the statutory language, and the Court may seek edification from the statute's legislative history and historical context at enactment. Interpretations of the Idaho Child Support Guidelines are questions of law subject to free review. Kornfield, 134 Idaho at 385, 3 P.3d at 63.

On the issue presented here, the legislative history of the statute and the documented history of the Idaho Child Support Guidelines provide no assistance. We perceive, however, at least three likely reasons for the provisions limiting the consideration of a parent's community property interest in the income of a new spouse. First, the parents of a child have a legal duty to financially support and care for their non-emancipated children. I.C. § 32-1002; Nab v. Nab, 114 Idaho 512, 515, 757 P.2d 1231, 1234 (Ct.App. 1988). Indeed, the Guidelines are premised on the principle that both parents should bear responsibility for financially supporting their child or children in proportion to their Guidelines Income. I.C.S.G. 4(a); Noble, 126 Idaho at 888, 894 P.2d at 121. The legislature may well have determined that a parent should not be relieved of that financial responsibility, in whole or in part, because of the fortuitous circumstance of an ex-spouse's remarriage to a person of significantly greater means. Second, computing child support obligations based upon a new spouse's income, which would have the effect of placing the financial burden of support in part upon the new spouse, could have the effect of discouraging remarriages. Third, inclusion of a new spouse's income as part of a remarried parent's income in the ordinary determination of child support would substantially complicate child support proceedings for our trial courts. Added to the issues for trial in many cases would be the measure of the income of a third party (or even a fourth party if both parents have remarried), and issues concerning the existence and scope of any community property interests of the remarried parent, including whether execution of a separate property agreement or like arrangement could be used to avoid inclusion of a new spouse's income.

In light of these public policy considerations that may underlie the statute and...