Carlos Martinez v. Evelia Carrasco
162 Idaho 336
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Parents (Father Carlos Martinez in Blackfoot, ID; Mother Evelia Carrasco in Oceanside, CA) share a three-year-old child; parents live ~913 miles apart.
- Father obtained default and amended default judgment (Oct 16, 2014 / Dec 29, 2014) awarding Father sole physical custody; Mother was served by publication.
- Mother did not move to set aside the entry of default but moved (Apr 14, 2016) to set aside the default judgment and later filed a motion to modify custody after Father took the child to Idaho in Mar 2016.
- Magistrate denied relief from the default judgment but permitted a modification motion and, after an evidentiary hearing, ordered alternating physical custody every three weeks with exchanges in Barstow, CA; ordered no child support and split uncovered medical expenses equally.
- Mother appealed; Idaho Supreme Court granted permissive appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Martinez (Plaintiff/Father) Argument | Carrasco (Defendant/Mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal given Mother never moved to set aside the entry of default | Default remained in effect and Mother’s failure to move to set aside default should bar relief; judgment by default stands | Entry of default was waived because Father litigated the modification and did not insist on the default; court should reach merits | Held: Default waived by Father’s conduct; Court has jurisdiction to address merits |
| Whether the magistrate abused discretion by ordering three-week custody rotations across 913 miles | Equal shared custody is appropriate; three-week rotation reduces number of exchanges vs weekly rotation | Three-week rotation imposes excessive travel burden on a young child given distance; court failed to consider travel distance as relevant factor | Held: Court abused its discretion ordering three-week rotation; custody provisions vacated |
| Whether mother’s potential income may be imputed for child support because she was unemployed/receiving assistance | Accept court’s calculation imputing $15,080 based on minimum-wage potential | Mother was unemployed, receiving assistance, lacked SSN; court made no finding of voluntary unemployment so imputing potential income was error | Held: Court erred imputing income without finding voluntary unemployment; child-support provisions vacated |
| Whether allocation of health insurance and medical expense sharing was appropriate | Offsetting child-support obligations justified no support; split uncovered expenses equally | Court should follow Guidelines: health insurance typically by employer-offering parent and uncovered expenses prorated by guideline income | Held: Court erred by potentially requiring both parents to provide insurance and by equally splitting uncovered expenses; provisions vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. McMullen, 156 Idaho 465, 328 P.3d 445 (Idaho 2014) (entry of default distinguished from default judgment; waiver principles)
- Kingsbury v. Brown, 60 Idaho 464, 92 P.2d 1053 (Idaho 1939) (default may be waived by plaintiff’s conduct; defendant must move to set aside default to participate)
- Commonwealth Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Lorain, 43 Idaho 784, 255 P. 909 (Idaho 1927) (entry of default must be set aside to vacate a default judgment; timing of relief measured from entry of default)
- Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. King Land & Improvement Co., 120 P. 1066 (Cal. 1912) (entry of default leaves defendant ‘out of court’; vacating judgment without vacating default is ineffectual)
- State v. Hart, 142 Idaho 721, 132 P.3d 1249 (Idaho 2006) (upheld two-week rotation over considerable distance where supported by evidence; but distance was near outer limit)