Solwey v. Solwey

Thomas Solwey (Solwey) appealed the first amended judgment awarding split residential responsibility of his and Lisa Solwey-Hilbert's (Hilbert) minor children. Solwey and Hilbert were married in 1998 and divorced in 2013. Hilbert was awarded primary residential responsibility of all four children (M.L.S., C.T.S., K.E.S., and K.D.S.). Solwey was ordered to pay $1,247 per month in child support. In August 2015, Solwey moved to modify primary residential responsibility. Under the heightened standard for such motions within two years of the previous order, the district court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing for lack of prima facie case. Solwey did not appeal that order. In November 2015, Solwey moved to modify primary residential responsibility under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6(4) and (6). The district court again denied for lack of prima facie case. Solwey appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court and the district court order was reversed and remanded with an order for evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing was held in March 2017; the district court ruled at the outset of the hearing that only C.T.S. and K.E.S. (twins) would be considered under the motion to modify. Solwey argued the family should be treated as a cohesive unit and therefore K.D.S., the youngest, should also be considered under the motion to modify. The district court ruled the Supreme Court's mandate for evidentiary hearing did not apply to K.D.S. The parties mutually agreed M.L.S., who was no longer a minor, would not be considered. The first amended judgment was entered in August 2017, awarding Hilbert primary residential responsibility of M.L.S. and K.D.S., awarding Solwey primary residential responsibility of C.T.S., and awarding shared joint equal residential responsibility of K.E.S. The district court ordered that Solwey's new child support obligation of $436 per month commence June 2017. Solwey appealed, but only filed a partial transcript of the evidentiary hearing. "The North Dakota Supreme Court has said repeatedly: "The appellant assumes the consequences and the risk for the failure to file a complete transcript. If the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged error, we will decline review of the issue." Because the Supreme Court did not have the benefit of a transcript to review the testimony heard by the district court, it concluded Solwey failed to meet his burden of proving the court's findings were clearly erroneous, and “we are not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” View "Solwey v. Solwey" on Justia Law