Rath v. Rath
2017 ND 138
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Mark Rath and Kayla Rath divorced in January 2013; Kayla awarded primary residential responsibility and Mark ordered to pay child support with supervised parenting time.
- The Child Support Enforcement Unit moved on April 25, 2016 to modify Mark’s support to $475/month based on 2015 income and other support duties; Mark opposed, arguing his required health insurance costs (or related tax penalty) should reduce his income.
- Mark filed multiple procedural motions including joinder (denied May 13, 2016) and three demands for change of judge under N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21 (filed May 17–23, 2016), each denied as untimely because Judge Hill had previously ruled on matters in the modification proceeding.
- Mark filed a motion for an order to show cause (Aug 3, 2016) accusing Kayla of contempt for failing to provide medical-bill copies and notice of uncovered medical expenses; the court denied it as meritless, finding no request for reimbursement had been made.
- After a hearing (Sept 15, 2016) the court modified Mark’s child support to $445/month, refused to deduct his personal health insurance premiums from income under the child-support guidelines, and warned Mark about sanctions for repetitive, harassing filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of judge under § 29-15-21 for child support modification | Mark: modification is a separate proceeding so he timely demanded change of judge | Court/State: demands were untimely because judge had already ruled on matters pertaining to the modification | Denied — demands untimely because Judge Hill had ruled on a joinder motion before demands were filed; statute bars demand after judge has ruled on any matter pertaining to proceeding |
| Denial of order to show cause for contempt | Mark: Kayla violated judgment by not informing him of medical expenses and not providing unpaid-bill copies | Kayla/Court: she did not request reimbursement and Mark had access to billing information; no clear, satisfactory proof of contempt | Denied — no contempt; nonpresentation of invoices where no reimbursement was sought is not a violation |
| Inclusion/deduction of health insurance premiums in income for support | Mark: required ACA insurance premiums or penalty reduce his income and should be deducted when computing support | State/Court: guidelines exclude employee benefits value unless included in wages and only allow deduction for premiums for children’s insurance; personal premiums are not deductible | Affirmed — court correctly applied N.D. Admin. Code definitions; personal health-premium payments not deductible in net income calculation |
| Court’s discretion and procedural rulings (joinder, timing, sanctions) | Mark: procedural handling (e.g., N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 timing) undermined his demands | Court: rulings within discretion; issue not preserved on brief/appeal | Affirmed — court rulings not an abuse of discretion and some arguments not preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zueger, 459 N.W.2d 235 (N.D. 1990) ("ruled upon any matter pertaining to the action" means all matters, barring later demand for change of judge)
- Schweitzer v. Mattingley, 887 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 2016) (standards of review for child support: law de novo, facts clearly erroneous, limited discretion)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 801 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 2011) (arguments raised first at oral argument on appeal generally not considered)