Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Kestner v. Clark

Alaska Supreme Court
182 P.3d 1117 (2008)


Facts

In 1990, Diane Kestner (plaintiff) and Christopher Clark (defendant) had a son, Nathan. Diane and Christopher later divorced. In 2001, Diane had been making $21,000 per year when she stopped working due to having her first child with her second spouse. Diane then had a second child with her husband and cared for all three children, including Nathan, for three years until Christopher was awarded primary custody of Nathan when he turned 14. Diane stayed at home, because childcare expenses of $9,000-$10,000 per year made it uneconomical for her to work. After Christopher was awarded custody of Nathan, Diane filed for modification of child support, seeking a downward deviation from the guideline amount to $50 per month, alleging lack of income and that it was reasonable for her to stay home to care for the children. Through discovery, evidence was revealed and later presented at trial to show that Diane’s spouse made $64,000 per year, and the family had a net worth of more than $450,000. The trial court refused discovery of Christopher’s fiancée’s income, but Diane testified that Christopher and his fiancée had a combined household income of $90,000-$100,000. Christopher acknowledged that he did not need child support from Diane, but argued that income should be imputed to Diane as a matter of law because she had a legal obligation to support her son. The trial court found that Diane was voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed, imputed $25,000 in annual income to her, and ordered her to pay child support of $299 per month. Diane appealed the award and the discovery order.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Fabe, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.