Opinion ID: 1160955
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The admissibility of Allan's evidence of added cost

Text: To support his claim that insuring Kaylee and Kristen cost him $339.20 per month, Allan presented the affidavit of Donald Parks (with attached exhibits) and his own affidavit. At the hearing on Allan's motion, Carrie did not argue that this evidence was inadmissible. The court nevertheless found that Allan had failed to offer any admissible evidence that the sum of $339.20 is the cost necessary to insure the two children. The court's reference to inadmissibility suggests that it denied Allan's motion because his affidavits contained hearsay. Allan persuasively disputes this ruling. Absent a proper objection, hearsay is normally admissible. [6] Here, Carrie raised no hearsay objection. Moreover, the trial court did not suggest that it considered the evidence to be problematic on this ground. [7] To the contrary, when Allan offered to call Parks as a witness during the hearing on his motion, the court indicated that his testimony was unnecessary. [8] Given these circumstances, if the trial court denied Allan's motion on the ground that his evidence of added cost was inadmissible hearsay, the court abused its discretion. Carrie offers an alternative explanation for the trial court's ruling, suggesting that, in finding no admissible evidence of the cost necessary to insure the two children, the court meant to say that Allan had failed to prove that the insurance package he had chosen was actually necessary to meet the children's needs. But this argument misconstrues the trial court's order, which directs Allan to continue providing the coverage precisely because it is necessary health care coverage for the children [and] is available to Allan under the collective bargaining agreement. In finding that Allan failed to show that $339.20 was the cost necessary to insure the girls, the court echoed the words of the commentary to Civil Rule 90.3(d)(1), which it had quoted in its decision. The commentary explains that the rule's cost-sharing provision is limited to that portion of the total cost necessary to insure the children involvednot the parent, the parent's new spouse or children of another relationship. [9] The court's reference to this commentary makes it obvious that it found Allan's evidence deficient not in failing to prove the need for the provided coverage, but in failing to prove the cost that was allocable to his daughters.