Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vogelsberg v. Vogelsberg

December 23, 2003

IN RE ROBERT J. VOGELSBERG, PETITIONER, APPELLANT,
v.
LISA L. VOGELSBERG, RESPONDENT, CITY OF RICE, INTERVENOR.



Rice County District Court File No. F8-97-1467

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

A district court has jurisdiction to review a subsequent decision of a child support magistrate (CSM) following a remand from the district court, when the CSM holds a hearing and reverses its original decision, and the party seeking review of the CSM's second decision is not the same party who requested the district court to review the first order.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kalitowski, Judge

Reversed and Remanded

OPINION

Appellant contends the district court erred when it determined it did not have jurisdiction to review a subsequent decision of the child support magistrate (CSM) following a remand from the district court. Appellant also argues that the CSM erred by miscalculating his income and increasing his child support obligation.

FACTS

Appellant Robert Vogelsberg and respondent Lisa Vogelsberg married in 1994. Approximately three years later their daughter, M.L.V., was born; shortly afterward, appellant petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. The district court dissolved the parties' marriage by stipulation in August 1998. In accordance with the parties' agreement, the court granted shared legal custody of M.L.V. to both parties, physical custody to respondent, and visitation to appellant. The district court also ordered appellant to pay $614 per month in child support.

Rice County provides child support collection services to the parties. In March 2002, Rice County informed appellant that a cost of living adjustment would be added to his current child support obligation unless he filed a timely motion and proved his income had not increased. Respondent subsequently filed a motion asking the court to increase appellant's child support obligation, claiming appellant's earnings had increased. Appellant filed a motion requesting that the court stay the cost of living adjustment and decrease his child support obligation because his earnings had decreased.

On June 14, 2002, the CSM heard the parties' motions, and on July 9, 2002, the CSM granted appellant's request to stay the cost of living adjustment and denied both parties' motions to modify the child support obligation. A notice attached to the CSM's order informed the parties that they had the right to (1) request a correction of clerical mistakes; (2) make a combined motion for correction of clerical mistakes and review by the CSM or district court; or (3) appeal to the court of appeals.

On July 24, 2002, respondent filed a motion for judicial review by the district court, arguing that the CSM erred in denying her motion for an increase in child support, citing numerous miscalculations and errors. On October 8, 2002, the district court affirmed the CSM's decision in part, amended it in part, and remanded the matter to the CSM for a new hearing to recalculate appellant's income and redetermine appellant's child support obligation.

On November 8, 2002, the CSM held a hearing, and on December 3, 2002, the CSM granted respondent's motion for modification and increased appellant's child support obligation to $1,000 per month. The CSM found that it made several errors in calculating appellant's income in the earlier order, including deducting social security and Medicare taxes from appellant's income when he only paid the Medicare tax. Again, the notice attached to the CSM's order informed the parties they had the right to (1) request a correction of clerical mistakes; (2) make a combined motion for correction of clerical mistakes and review by the CSM or district court; or (3) appeal to the court of appeals.

On December 24, 2002, appellant filed a combined motion to correct a clerical mistake and a motion seeking review by the district court, arguing the CSM erred by: (1) granting a support obligation that was 30% of his income when 25% was the correct standard for one child; (2) miscalculating his income; and (3) modifying his child ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.