In re Q.R.

Divorce; Evid.R. 611; expert witness; expert report; separate property; financial tracing; division of property; motion to show cause; contempt; financial misconduct; distributive award; child tax exemption; temporary support; time limitations; due process; attorney fees; abuse of discretion; custody determination; best interest of the children; marital debts; imputed income. Our standard of reviewing decisions of a domestic relations court is generally the abuse-of-discretion standard. Upon review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence from an expert witness related to the financial tracing of various claim separate property. The court did not abuse its discretion in its division of marital property and separate property, or in its allocation of marital debts and liabilities. Plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to a distributive award where defendant-appellee did not commit financial misconduct. The allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and the order to alternate the child tax exemption was not an abuse of discretion. Finally, the trial court did not err in imputing income to defendant-appellee.

This case involves a post-divorce action, in which the father filed a petition for contempt against the mother, alleging that the mother failed to pay her portion of the child's medical expenses pursuant to the permanent parenting plan. The Trial Court denied the father's request that the mother be held in contempt but awarded the father a judgment for the mother's portion of the child's medical expenses. The Trial Court declined to award attorney's fees to the father and ordered that the mother be permitted to make installment payments to the father. We vacate the Trial Court's order permitting the installment payments as being premature. We further modify the judgment against Mother to $38,759.11 upon our determination that the amount paid by the father to Mountain Management and Denials Management was only $1,781.76. We affirm the Trial Court's judgment in all other aspects.

Mandamus, enforcement of judgment, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, motion for contempt, appeal. The relators, through a complaint for a writ of mandamus, seek to enforce a monetary judgment. The relators have failed to establish that they possess a clear legal right to the immediate enforcement of a monetary judgment. In addition, the relators possess or possessed an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law through a motion for contempt. Finally, the monetary judgment in question is currently the subject of a pending appeal.