In Limeres v. Limeres,[1] the supreme court held that an evidentiary hearing for a motion to modify child support is only necessary upon a showing of substantially new, sufficient evidence of a material change in income-related circumstances.[2] Rene Limeres appealed from the denial of his 2014 motion to modify his child support obligation, following his 2012 divorce and a prior failed attempt to have his support obligation modified in 2013.[3] In denying his motion, the superior court declined to grant an evidentiary hearing regarding tax returns and affidavits showing Rene’s changed financial circumstances.[4] Rene argued that his submitted evidence of changed circumstances regarding assets and employment entitled him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion.[5] The supreme court held that to prevent successive and redundant hearings, the evidence submitted must sufficiently show a material, permanent reduction in income.[6] The court reasoned this evidence must therefore be new—not simply additional evidence of previously asserted hardship, as judged by the timespan between motions and the similarity in amount and nature of income stated.[7] Because Rene’s income evidence was not sufficiently different from, and was filed within months of, his previous motion,[8] the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s denial of his motion without an evidentiary hearing.[9] Affirming the lower court, the supreme court holding that an evidentiary hearing for a motion to modify child support is only necessary if the movant shows substantially new evidence of a material, permanent change in income-related circumstances.[10]
[1] 367 P.3d 683 (Alaska 2016).
[2] Id. at 687.
[3] Id. at 684-85.
[4] Id. at 685–86.
[5] Id. at 686.
[6] Id. at 687-88.
[7] Id. at 687–89.
[8] Id. at 689-90.
[9] Id. at 690.
[10] Id. at 690.
