From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Eklund v. Eklund
North Dakota Supreme Court
538 N.W.2d 182 (1995)
In 1988, Kendal J. Eklund (plaintiff) and Linda L. Eklund (defendant) divorced. Kendal was ordered to pay $300 per month in child support for each of their two children. In 1990, the oldest child turned 18 years old, and Kendal was no longer obligated to support him. Linda petitioned the trial court to increase the monthly obligation Kendal owed for their second child. The petition was denied on the ground that Linda was unable to show a significant change of circumstances. In 1992, the Minot Regional Child Support Enforcement Unit (unit) petitioned the trial court to increase Kendal’s monthly obligation and argued that a significant change of circumstances was not required. The petition was denied on the ground that such a showing was required and because the unit did not comply with some of the procedures required by statute. North Dakota’s Department of Human Services (department) then promulgated new child-support guidelines. The new guidelines utilized an obligor model, under which the amount of child support owed was determined by the obligor’s income, and it provided that a significant change of circumstances was not required to modify a child-support obligation. The state’s Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (committee) objected to the new guidelines. The committee claimed that the guidelines should utilize an income-shares model, under which the amount of support the obligor owes is determined by considering the income of both parents. The committee reasoned that the income-shares model was best because it ensures that the duty of support falls on both parents, it is fairer and less adversarial, it is supported by public opinion, and it serves the best interests of the child. The department responded that NDCC 14-09-09.7 authorized it to develop child-support guidelines and did not mandate the income-shares model. Further, the department reasoned that the income-shares model was too complicated and led to increased litigation and that adopting the income-shares model was contrary to the intention of the legislature. Following the adoption of the new guidelines, the unit petitioned the court again to increase Kendal’s child-support obligation to $572 per month, which was the appropriate amount pursuant to the new guidelines. The trial court, finding that the department’s new guidelines controlled, granted the request. Kendal appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Meschke, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 630,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.