Rohr v. Rohr

• Decision Date: 05 February 1996
• Docket Number: No. 21507,21507
• Citation: 911 P.2d 133,128 Idaho 137
• Parties: Teresa Ann ROHR, nka Teresa Ann Lenhart, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Michael ROHR, Defendant-Respondent. . Pocatello, September 1995 Term
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 133

911 P.2d 133

128 Idaho 137

Teresa Ann ROHR, nka Teresa Ann Lenhart, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Michael ROHR, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 21507.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Pocatello, September 1995 Term.

Feb. 5, 1996.

[128 Idaho 138] Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bannock County. Peter D. McDermott, District Judge; Garth S. Pincock, Magistrate Judge.

Appeal from magistrate's order modifying child support provisions of divorce decree. Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded. Appeal from magistrate's order awarding attorney fees. Reversed.

John B. Kugler, Pocatello, for appellant.

Gregory C. May, Pocatello, for respondent.

McDEVITT, Chief Justice.

This is an action for modification of child support payments brought by William Michael Rohr (Rohr) against Teresa Ann Rohr, n.k.a. Teresa Ann Lenhart (Lenhart). The magistrate division modified the support payments based on its finding that there were substantial and material changes in the parties' circumstances since the last divorce decree. The magistrate's findings were affirmed by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part the findings of the magistrate.

I. BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Rohr and Lenhart were married on October 10, 1981, and divorced on July 28, 1986. One child, Shambray Rohr (Shambray), was born as issue of the parties on June 11, 1980. The divorce decree awarded Lenhart primary physical custody of Shambray, with Rohr having reasonable rights of visitation. Under the original divorce decree, Rohr was to pay $190.00 per month for the support of Shambray. On October 18, 1991, Rohr's child support payments for Shambray were increased to $384.91 per month.

On July 29, 1992, Rohr and his new wife had a baby boy named Nicholas Michael Rohr (Nicholas). Nicholas resides with Rohr and his new wife. On December 22, 1992, Rohr filed a petition to modify his child support payments. In his petition, Rohr claimed that the birth of an additional child constituted a permanent, material, and substantial change in circumstances that warranted modification of the divorce decree pursuant to the child support Guidelines. Lenhart answered arguing Rohr's petition should have been dismissed on the grounds that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction over Rohr's petition because an appeal was pending before the Idaho Court of Appeals and because Rohr had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Lenhart admitted that on July 29, 1992, Rohr and his new wife had a baby boy named Nicholas Rohr.

A trial was held on July 16, 1993. Rohr testified during the trial that his salary was $14.72 per hour, that he averaged about 6 hours of overtime per month, which was paid at his normal hourly rate plus half of that rate, and that he was paid about $30.00 per month for his position as a union steward.

On August 24, 1993, Rohr was granted an order modifying Rohr's child support obligation. The magistrate reduced Rohr's support obligation for Shambray from $384.91 per month to $308.00 per month, based upon Rohr's reduced gross income, the birth of Nicholas, and Nicholas's need for support. The combination of these factors were found to constitute a permanent, material, and substantial change of circumstances since the last order modifying the divorce decree. The magistrate found that Rohr's income was $2,473.52 per month, including union pay of $30.00 a month and overtime of 6 hours per month. In addition, the magistrate found that Lenhart's income was $1,734.00 per month. Pursuant to the Idaho Child Support Guidelines (I.C.S.G.), the magistrate reduced Rohr's child support obligation to $308.00 per month by deducting $4,651.00 per year (for Nicholas's support) from Rohr's annual gross income of $29,676.00. I.C.S.G. §§ 7(3), 10(a). The reduction in Rohr's child support obligation was retroactively applied by the magistrate to the date of Rohr's petition to modify, December 18, 1992 ¹. Rohr was awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees by the magistrate as the prevailing party.

On September 7, 1993, Lenhart filed a motion to modify the magistrate's August 24, 1993 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. On September 17, 1993, the magistrate entered Judgment in favor of Rohr pursuant to the magistrate's August 24, 1993 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. On October 5, 1993, a hearing was held in which Lenhart objected to the magistrate's August 24, 1993 decision to award attorney fees to Rohr and argued the magistrate's findings were in error with regard to the amount of Rohr's gross income. On October 15, 1993, the magistrate issued a memorandum decision denying Lenhart's objections and affirming Rohr's award of costs and attorney fees.

Lenhart appealed the magistrate's decision to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate's finding that Rohr's gross income was $2,473.52 per month and ultimately affirmed the magistrate's award of costs and attorney fees to Rohr in its June 23, 1994 Order. Lenhart petitioned the district court for rehearing, which was denied. Lenhart appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Although the divorce and custody matters underlying this case have been the subject of three prior appeals ², the prior cases are relevant to this appeal only in regard to Lenhart's argument that the magistrate erred in modifying the decree while an appeal from that decree was pending before the Court of Appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing decisions of a magistrate, this Court will uphold the magistrate's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence. Noble v. Fisher, 126 Idaho 885, 888, 894 P.2d 118, 121 (1995); Ireland v. Ireland, 123 Idaho 955, 957-58, 855 P.2d 40, 42-43 (1993). We independently review the decision of a magistrate with due regard for a district court decision that was made in an appellate capacity. Noble, 126 Idaho at 888, 894 P.2d at 121.

III. ANALYSIS

A. The magistrate did not err by not dismissing Rohr's petition for modification.

On appeal, Lenhart argues that the magistrate erred in modifying the divorce decree while an appeal from that decree was pending before the Court of Appeals. This Court exercises free review over questions of law. Downey Chiropractic Clinic v. Nampa Restaurant Corp., 127 Idaho 283, 285, 900 P.2d 191, 193 (1995).

Idaho Appellate Rule (I.A.R.) 13(b)(11) states in part:

In civil actions ... the district court shall have power and authority to rule upon the following motions and to take the following actions during the pendency on an appeal;

(11) Take any action or enter any order deemed advisable in the discretion of the court with regard to the ... support of children pending any appeal involving the ... support of such children, and to amend or modify such order from time to time, during the pendency of the appeal, by reason of changes of circumstances of the parties.

I.A.R. 13(b)(11).

Under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.) 3(a), Rohr commenced a civil action by filing his petition to modify his divorce decree with the district court on December 22, 1992. Pursuant to I.A.R. 13(b)(11), the magistrate had the discretionary power and authority to modify Rohr's child support payments set forth in Rohr's divorce decree in the event the magistrate found the circumstances of the parties had changed, regardless of the parties' pending appeal. The record supports the magistrate's finding that Rohr's reduced gross income combined with the birth of Nicholas and Nicholas's need for support, constituted a permanent, material, and substantial change of circumstances since the last order modifying the divorce decree. The magistrate did not err in granting Rohr's petition for modification, despite the fact that the parties' divorce decree was contemporaneously the subject of an appeal before the Idaho Court of Appeals. I.A.R. 13(b)(11).

Lenhart argues that Rohr's petition for modification failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the magistrate should have dismissed on such grounds. Our standard of review for a magistrate's denial of a motion to dismiss is the same as our summary judgment standard of review. Rim View Trout Co. v. Department of Water Resources, 119 Idaho 676, 677, 809 P.2d 1155, 1156 (1991). After viewing all facts and inferences from the record in favor of the non-moving party, we will ask whether a claim for relief has been stated. Orthman v. Idaho Power Co., 126 Idaho 960, 962, 895 P.2d 561, 563 (1995).

Under Idaho Code (I.C.) § 32-709, the child support provisions of a divorce decree may be modified if a substantial and material change of circumstances has occurred since the last divorce decree was entered. Rohr's December 22, 1992 petition for modification requested the magistrate to modify the last order modifying the divorce decree on the grounds that he and his new wife had a new baby boy, who was in need of support, which constituted a permanent, material, and substantial change of circumstances since the last order modifying the divorce decree. After viewing all inferences from the record in favor of Rohr, this Court holds that the magistrate properly found that Rohr's petition for modification stated a claim for relief claiming a material and substantial change of circumstances. Idaho Schs. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 578, 850 P.2d 724, 729 (1993); I.C. § 32-709. The magistrate's denial of Lenhart's motion to dismiss Rohr's petition for modification is affirmed.

B. There was substantial, competent evidence to support the magistrate's finding of a substantial and material change of circumstances.

The child support provisions of a divorce decree may be modified only upon a showing that "substantial and material changes of circumstances" have occurred since the last divorce decree. I.C. § 32-709; Noble v. Fisher, 126 Idaho at 888, 894 P.2d at 121. It is...