985 N.W.2d 725
N.D.2023Background
- Mark Rath and Heather Zins (formerly Odden) share one child; multiple child-support judgments were entered and amended between 2005–2016, with the last requiring Rath to pay $366/month.
- In April 2021 Rath filed motions to amend the child support judgment, consolidate claims, and for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6); an evidentiary hearing was held on his modification motion.
- Rath produced limited income documentation (a 2021 profit-loss statement; no 2019–2020 tax returns); Zins produced tax returns and testified she operates a daycare at a loss and receives SSI/SSD.
- The district court granted the State an extension to file pleadings, issued protective orders limiting certain discovery of Zins’ financial information, and denied several of Rath’s proposed filings pursuant to a local pre-filing (vexatious litigant) order.
- The local pre-filing order that prompted denial of Rath’s filings was later vacated by this Court; this Court also entered a statewide pre-filing order governing Rath’s future filings.
- The district court denied Rath’s motion to modify child support; Rath appealed multiple rulings and also raised an unbriefed constitutional challenge to the Child Support Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Granting State an extension to file pleadings and the short response deadline | State: good cause to extend time | Rath: extension was arbitrary; due process harmed by one-day response order | Affirmed — extension within court discretion; no due process violation |
| Protective orders limiting discovery of Zins’ financial information | Zins: tax returns relevant but other personal financial data should be protected | Rath: broader discovery needed to calculate income/support | Affirmed in part — tax returns ordered, other sensitive info protected; not an abuse of discretion |
| Denial of Rath’s applications to file motions under an existing local pre-filing (vexatious litigant) order | Court/State: filings barred by the presiding judge’s pre-filing order | Rath: denial improper because the pre-filing order was later vacated | Reversed and remanded — denials were pursuant to a vacated order; Rath may refile or seek leave under current statewide pre-filing order |
| Denial of motion to modify child support (insufficiency of income proof and no deviation) | State/Zins: guidelines applied; Rath failed to prove income or travel expenses to justify deviation | Rath: should modify support based on his self-employment income and travel expenses | Affirmed — factual findings not clearly erroneous; proper application of Child Support Guidelines; no deviation warranted |
| Constitutional challenge to the Child Support Guidelines | Rath: guidelines violate unspecified constitutional rights | N/A | Not considered — claims inadequately briefed and unsupported by authority |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. K.B. v. Bauer, 763 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 2009) (articulates abuse-of-discretion review standard)
- Hagel v. Hagel, 721 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 2006) (discusses when a court abuses its discretion)
- Vorachek v. Citizens State Bank of Lankin, 421 N.W.2d 45 (N.D. 1988) (procedures for objecting to discovery vs. seeking a protective order)
- Knudson v. Knudson, 916 N.W.2d 793 (N.D. 2018) (importance of correctly finding obligor’s net income for child support)
- Gooss v. Gooss, 951 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 2020) (proper application of child support guidelines is reviewed de novo; deviations are discretionary)
- Rath v. Rath, 974 N.W.2d 652 (N.D. 2022) (vacating the locally entered pre-filing order and issuing a statewide pre-filing order governing Rath)