Opinion ID: 1194893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Removing the Extended Visitation Credit from the DR-300?

Text: As a general rule, an issue that was not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. See Padgett v. Theus, 484 P.2d 697, 700 (Alaska 1971). This court has made exceptions to the rule when the issue is not dependent on any new or controverted facts and is closely related to [the] trial court theory and could have been gleaned from [the] pleadings. O'Neill Investigations v. Illinois Employers Ins., 636 P.2d 1170, 1175 n. 7 (Alaska 1981). Donald did not raise the issue of a child support credit for extended visitation during the parties' settlement negotiations, nor did he file a motion for such a credit before the superior court. To address the issue of the appropriateness of the credit for the first time on appeal would prejudice Roxanne since she did not have the chance to present evidence or counter arguments on this issue below. Furthermore, resolution of the issue could require the consideration of new and controverted facts, such as the expenses Donald will incur while his children are visiting during the summer. Therefore, Donald is barred from raising the issue of his entitlement to a credit for the first time on appeal.
Donald also contends that the superior court had an independent obligation to consider the appropriateness of a child support credit during times of extended visitation even if this issue was not raised by a party. He claims that the court failed to fulfill this obligation. Donald relies on the following language from Renfro v. Renfro, 848 P.2d 830, 832 (Alaska 1993): Although affording a credit under Rule 90.3(a)(3) is a discretionary decision, that fact does not relieve the superior court of its obligation to consider whether or not to grant a credit. He contends that because the superior court did not make findings demonstrating that it had considered the issue, this court should remand the issue to the superior court so that it may decide whether such a credit is appropriate. However, in Renfro, the obligor parent raised the issue of the credit for extended visitation before the trial court, arguing the entitlement to such a credit. We held that the trial court must consider any provision of Rule 90.3 whose application is urged by a party where a sufficient factual predicate is established. Renfro, 848 P.2d at 832 (emphasis added). Certainly the trial court does not have an independent obligation to consider the appropriateness of a child support credit during times of extended visitation if the credit is not requested by one of the parties.