Sarah M. Geiger v. Brandon T. Elliott
Background
- Parents Sarah Geiger (plaintiff-respondent) and Brandon Elliot (defendant-appellant) mediated a 2012 custody order: joint legal and physical custody, Geiger primary residential parent, Elliot had weekly four-day block visitation tied to his work schedule.
- Elliot later sought modification based on a new job and changing work schedule; proposed alternating-week physical custody.
- Magistrate found Elliot’s changed work schedule did not justify changing primary custody but warranted adjusting parenting time; ordered Elliot custody every other Wednesday–Sunday (ending 5 p.m.).
- Magistrate denied Elliot’s request for attorney fees; district court on intermediate appeal affirmed magistrate’s custody decision and reversed the attorney-fees award (mooting part of Elliot’s appeal to this Court).
- This Court reviews whether the magistrate’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence and whether the magistrate exercised reason in determining the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geiger) | Defendant's Argument (Elliot) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether magistrate’s award of attorney fees (to Geiger) was erroneous | The fee award was proper below | Elliot argued magistrate erred in awarding fees (later moot) | Moot: district court reversed fee award; issue not addressed here |
| 2. Whether there was a substantial and material change warranting change of primary custody | Existing order should remain; magistrate’s adjustment appropriate | Job and schedule change are substantial/material and require primary custody change to alternate-week schedule | Affirmed magistrate and district court: schedule change did not justify changing primary custody; visitation modified instead |
| 3. Whether district court abused discretion on intermediate appeal (failure to apply I.C. §32-717, consider other opinions, or reweigh facts) | District court properly reviewed for substantial evidence and reasoned exercise of discretion | District court ignored statutory factors, other magistrate opinions, and misapplied standard | Held: district court did not err—Elliot waived many arguments and magistrate’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence |
| 4. Entitlement to appellate attorney fees | Geiger sought fees under I.C. §12-121 for frivolous appeal | Elliot sought fees under various statutes | Awarded fees to Geiger under I.C. §12-121; denied to Elliot; appellate briefing deemed frivolous/unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413, 224 P.3d 480 (2009) (standard of review for district court reviewing magistrate)
- McGriff v. McGriff, 140 Idaho 642, 99 P.3d 111 (2004) (custody determinations committed to trial court discretion)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 144 Idaho 710, 170 P.3d 375 (2007) (abuse of discretion when custody award lacks sufficient evidence of child's best interest)
- Reed v. Reed, 137 Idaho 53, 44 P.3d 1108 (2002) (magistrate findings upheld if supported by substantial and competent evidence)
- Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (2010) (issues unsupported by argument and authority are waived)
- Hoffer v. Shappard, 160 Idaho 870, 380 P.3d 681 (2016) (interpretation of I.C. §12-121 regarding appellate fee awards)