Schweitzer v. Mattingley
2016 ND 231
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Parents (Schweitzer in Minot; Mattingley in Velva ~22 miles away) dispute primary residential responsibility and child support for their child born 2012.
- Interim order (Feb 2015) set parenting time and $970/month child support; Mattingley moved to modify support in Mar 2015 and also moved to recuse Judge Hagar.
- Judge Hagar reduced support to $891/month (June 2015), then denied recusal but self-disqualified the same day; Judge Louser presided at trial but later recused; Judge Lee then took the case.
- Judge Lee vacated Hagar’s June 2015 support order (concluding Hagar lacked authority post-recusal motion), found Mattingley’s annual income $78,600, and ordered support of $891/month (effective Sept 1, 2015) and $836/month (effective Nov 1, 2015); later reduced to $440/month after Mattingley’s job loss.
- District court awarded primary residential responsibility to Schweitzer, finding the child’s best interests favored living in Minot (school continuity, travel burdens if child lived in Velva).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Lee properly vacated Judge Hagar’s June 2015 child support order | Schweitzer: Hagar’s order should stand; no basis to void it | Mattingley: Hagar was disqualified by recusal motion so his June order invalid | Court: Vacatur was erroneous; June 12, 2015 order reinstated (Mattingley pays $891/mo Mar–Aug 2015) |
| Proper method and amount for calculating Mattingley’s income for support | Schweitzer: Use pay stubs and average to $80,563.04 | Mattingley: Overtime not guaranteed; income lower (proposed ~$76,642) | Court: $78,600 reasonable given evidence of reduced overtime; support awards of $891 and $836 affirmed through Mar 31, 2016 |
| Whether district court clearly erred in awarding primary residential responsibility to Schweitzer | Schweitzer: Child should live in Minot for school continuity; less travel/after‑school care | Mattingley: Travel distance to Minot insufficient to show harm; child could live with father in Velva | Court: Not clearly erroneous; best‑interest factors (school continuity, home stability) tip in Schweitzer’s favor |
| Whether successor judge complied with N.D.R.Civ.P. 63 when taking the case | Schweitzer: Judge Lee properly certified familiarity and ability to decide | Mattingley: Judge Lee failed to expressly certify he could complete without prejudice | Court: Judge Lee’s statements that he could "fairly and intelligently rule on all issues" satisfied Rule 63 |
Key Cases Cited
- Berge v. Berge, 710 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 2006) (district court must state how it determined net income for child support)
- Rath v. Rath, 879 N.W.2d 735 (N.D. 2016) (recusal standards and presumption of judicial impartiality)
- Datz v. Dosch, 846 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2014) (recusal procedure and timing; judge not automatically divested by recusal motion)
- Sweeney v. Kirby, 864 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 2015) (standard for reviewing primary residential responsibility; appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
- Smith v. Martinez, 800 N.W.2d 304 (N.D. 2011) (primary residential responsibility is a factual finding reviewed for clear error)