In re the Marriage of Ryan E. Boettcher, Appellant, and Christina L. Boettcher, Appellee.
County District Court No. 10DR822 Honorable W. Troy Hause,
Eckelberry Law Firm, LLC, John L. Eckelberry, Denver,
Colorado, for Appellant
Goldstone, LLC, Amanda M. Peek, Greeley, Colorado, for
1 In this post-dissolution of marriage dispute concerning
child support for the child of Ryan E. Boettcher (father) and
Christina L. Boettcher (mother), father appeals the order
modifying his support obligation and requiring him to pay a
portion of mother's attorney fees under section
14-10-119, C.R.S. 2017. We affirm.
2 The parties' ten-year marriage ended in 2011. Their
agreement that no child support would be owed by either of
them was incorporated into the decree.
3 In 2015, mother moved to modify child support, alleging
changed income resulting in more than a ten percent change in
the amount of support that would be due. The district court
ordered the parties to exchange financial information and
mediate, but the support issue was not resolved.
4 After a hearing, the district court ordered father to pay
mother $3000 in monthly child support as of the date she
moved to modify, which, after crediting father with payments
he voluntarily made, resulted in arrearages of $34, 822, to
be paid off over twenty-four months. Based on the disparity
in the parties' financial resources and income, the court
further ordered father to pay seventy percent of mother's
attorney fees incurred for the proceedings.
5 Father contends that the court erred by (1) determining
that there was no rebuttable presumptive child support
obligation when the parents' combined incomes exceed the
highest level of the statutory income schedule; (2) not
making sufficient findings and including inappropriate
expenses in awarding mother $3000 per month in child support;
and (3) awarding retroactive child support back to the date
of mother's motion without making sufficient findings to
support the award. We disagree.
Standard of Review
6 "We review child support orders for abuse of
discretion because the issue of the parents' financial
resources is factual in nature." In re Marriage of
Davis, 252 P.3d 530, 533 (Colo.App. 2011). A court
abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. In re Marriage of
Atencio, 47 P.3d 718, 720 (Colo.App. 2002).
7 We review de novo whether the district court applied the
correct legal standard. Id. "Interpretation of
the child support statutes is a question of law that we
review de novo." In re Marriage of
Paige, 2012 COA 83, ¶ 9.
Determining Child Support When the Parents' Combined
Incomes Exceed the Highest Level of the Statutory Schedule
8 Child support is determined by applying the schedule in
section 14-10-115(7)(b), C.R.S. 2017, to the parents'
combined gross incomes. See §
14-10-115(7)(a)(I); Davis, 252 P.3d at 534. The
resulting basic child support obligation is then divided