Mantz v. MantzNo. 20060365

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Adair Ehr, formerly known as Adair Mantz, appeals from a second amended judgment modifying Todd Mantz's child support obligation. Ehr argues the district court erred in computing the child support obligation because the child support calculations should not have been based on Mantz's 2005 income. She claims Mantz's 2005 income is substantially lower than his income in previous years because he engaged in manipulative conduct in an attempt to avoid a significant increase in his child support obligation, and the court should have imputed his income because he is underemployed or has made a voluntary change in employment resulting in a reduction of income. We conclude the court's findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
Daniel J. Crothers
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner