Court Opinion

ID: 9875611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:37:54.229674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:03.481314
License: Public Domain

McEvers, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 22] I agree with and have signed with the majority opinion. The district court is the appropriate place to determine questions of credibility. The district court questioned Mark Rath’s credibility in refusing to hold Kayla Rath in contempt. I write separately to note that certain assertions, if credible, suggest Kayla Rath may be making decisions without the required communication under the divorce judgment. I am also accordingly concerned about Kayla Rath’s lack of response to Mark Rath’s recent motions. It is noted that the district court’s March 18, 2015, order excused her from responding to specified motions and supporting documents in the record “unless directed to do so by this Court.” Mark Rath’s hyperactive litigiousness to enforce the judgment by bringing multiple contempt motions has clearly affected his credibility. The district court, however, should take caution in excusing Kayla Rath from all responsibility to respond to non-frivolous allegations under the March 18 order. By not responding, Kayla Rath risks that a decision is made without taking the opportunity to present a full record. It may also encourage her to completely disregard her obligations under the divorce judgment.
[¶ 23] Lisa Fair McEvers
Gary H. Lee, D.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.