Limeres v. Limeres
367 P.3d 683
| Alaska | 2016Background
- Rene and Amy Limeres divorced after 15 years; the superior court (2012) found Rene's annual income to be $40,000 and ordered child support of about $1,514/month. Rene contested that finding on appeal and lost in 2014.
- Rene repeatedly filed motions to modify child support, submitting self-reported tax returns and child-support affidavits showing much lower income (around $5,770–$8,427) and affidavits claiming diminished book-sale income, injury, and inability to print more books.
- The superior court denied Rene’s 2014 motion to modify without an evidentiary hearing, concluding his submissions did not present substantially new evidence given the short time since trial and similarity to prior filings.
- Amy opposed the motion and, in her opposition brief (not a separate motion), requested attorney’s fees under Civil Rule 82 and Rule 11 sanctions, stating 2.5 hours of attorney time ($562.50) but filing no billing detail.
- The superior court awarded Amy $500 in fees (treating the opposition as a motion for fees) and declined Rule 11 sanctions; Rene moved for reconsideration and appealed both the denial of a hearing and the fee award.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed denial of an evidentiary hearing (no substantially new evidence), vacated the fee award, and remanded for an opportunity to respond because the court awarded fees absent a proper fee motion and without advising the pro se litigant of his right to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rene) | Defendant's Argument (Amy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Rene’s motion to modify child support | Rene: his later tax returns, affidavits about depleted book inventory, injury, and reduced earning capacity created a genuine issue of material fact requiring a hearing | Amy: submissions were repetitive, similar to evidence already rejected at trial; no new, credible evidence justifying another hearing | Held: No hearing required — evidence was not substantially new and time lapse was short; bare assertions without corroboration insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether the superior court properly awarded attorney’s fees absent a separate motion under Civil Rule 82 | Rene: fee award violated procedure; he was not given notice or an opportunity to respond | Amy: fee request in her opposition brief put Rene on notice of fees sought | Held: Fee award was improper — court must require a motion or notify pro se litigant it will treat opposition as a motion and give reasonable opportunity to respond; vacated and remanded |
| Whether full/enhanced fees under Rule 82 were justified | Rene: N/A (argued lack of procedure and opportunity to rebut bad-faith assertion) | Amy: characterized Rene’s motion as frivolous and sought enhanced fees and sanctions | Held: Court instructed that full fees require specific finding of vexatious or bad-faith conduct; without allowing response, enhanced award is an abuse of discretion |
| Standard and burden for showing a material change of circumstances under Rule 90.3(h) | Rene: his filings and affidavit satisfied the prima facie showing of material change | Amy: disputed the credibility and sufficiency of the proof | Held: Moving party bears burden to make prima facie showing; here burden not met because evidence was consistent with prior submissions and lacked corroboration |
Key Cases Cited
- Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2014) (prior appeal upholding the trial court’s income finding)
- Hill v. Bloom, 235 P.3d 215 (Alaska 2010) (refusing a new evidentiary hearing where post-trial evidence was essentially the same as evidence presented at trial)
- Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66 (Alaska 1987) (duty to inform pro se litigant of proper procedure when court departs from normal procedures)
- Pedersen v. Blythe, 292 P.3d 182 (Alaska 2012) (trial court must advise pro se litigant and give reasonable opportunity to respond when converting pleadings or considering matters outside pleadings)
- Kollander v. Kollander, 322 P.3d 897 (Alaska 2014) (Rule 82 fee-award framework and requirement to state reasons for deviating from the schedule)