In re Marriage of Griffin

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 129,337

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Matter of the Marriage of DOMINIC GRIFFIN,

Appellant,

and

LISA GRIFFIN,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Johnson District Court; JOANN WOLTMAN, judge. Submitted without oral argument.

Opinion filed September 18, 2026. Affirmed.

Dominic Griffin, appellant pro se.

Lisa Griffin, appellee pro se.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, P.J., MALONE and PICKERING, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Few tasks assigned to a district court are more difficult than dividing the assets accumulated during a long marriage and establishing appropriate support for the parties' children when the spouses are unable to resolve those matters themselves. Mediation and negotiated settlements almost always provide a better avenue for fashioning solutions tailored to a family's unique circumstances. Here, however, after a 16-year marriage and the raising of two children, the parties were unable to bridge their differences. They turned to the court to resolve the economic consequences of their divorce. And as we see so often, at least one of the spouses, often both, believes the court

2

did not divide the property in a just manner. Here, it is Husband who appeals from the district court's final divorce decree and denial of his posttrial motion challenging the property division and child support order. Because we find that he has failed to establish any reversible error, we affirm the district court's decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After roughly 16 years of marriage, Husband filed for divorce from Wife in May 2024. At the time of filing, both parties were still cohabitating at their marital home in Shawnee along with their two minor children. The district court issued a temporary order granting joint legal custody of the children but no child support.

The litigation was contentious to say the least. The parties subsequently disputed child custody and support, alimony, division of their property, and allocation of debts. The district court ordered mediation, which proved unsuccessful.

In early January 2025, the district court held a one-day trial at which the parties presented evidence. The district court considered that evidence and issued a written ruling within the next week. The district court found that the parties were incompatible, and each party was therefore granted a divorce on that ground. In regard to child custody and support, the decree provided for joint custody and $1,459 monthly child support paid by Husband to Wife. In regard to property division and debt allocation, the district court ordered, in pertinent part, as follows:

"a. Marital Home: [Wife] is granted all right title and interest to the real estate at: Street Address: [Shawnee home].

i. [Wife] shall be responsible for payment of any mortgage loan, lien, or obligation for the above named real estate and shall hold the other harmless on that debt. This transfer does not change the rights of any creditor to collect the debt from either party.

3

ii. [Wife] will refinance the home within 90 days of this decree. If [Wife] cannot refinance the home within 90 days, and/or pay the equalization payment as laid forth below, the home will be immediately placed on the market and the parties will split the net equity up to $124,897.00 50/50. Any net equity in excess of $124,897.00 will be awarded to wife as wife has solely been responsible for the mortgage and upkeep of the marital home since May of 2024.

....

"e. Debt:

.... ii. Wife will be responsible for the following debts: The Nebraska Furniture Mart Debt $(3,562.00); the Care Credit Debt ($2,755.00); the Lowe's Credit Card $(3,593.00); The AMEX Credit Card $(14,322.00); the Tax Debt $(10,000.00); and the Car Max Debt $(702.00).

iii. Husband will be responsible for the following debts: The Harbor Freight Credit Card $(586.00); The Affirm $(1,125.00); The Best Buy Credit Card $(2,077.00); the Citibank Credit Card $(3,990.00); The Wells Fargo Credit Card $(3,877.00); The Pay Pal Credit Card $(3,990.00); The Comentiy AMEX—Bread debt $(4,098.00); The Capital One Credit Card $(20,947.00); The Discover Consolidation Loan $(27,099.00); The Ally Auto Loan $(36,000.00).

"f. Equalization Payment. Wife will pay an equalization payment to Husband in the amount of $62,448.00 within 120 days from the date of this decree. If Wife cannot pay the equalization payment within 120 days from the date of this decree, the marital home will be immediately placed on the market for sale and the proceeds divided as laid forth in section 10(a)(ii).

"g. Personal Property: The personal property laid forth below is awarded to Husband. All other personal property currently in Wife's possession, is awarded to Wife.

i. Ryobi Battery Operated Tools ii. Trek Road Bike iii. Variety of hand tools iv. 86" Samsung TV in basement v. Leather Loveseat vi. Wahoo Bike Trainer vii. Formal Dining Room Table

4

viii. Golf Clubs ix. Office Desk x. Paint Sprayer xi. Wood Planer xii. Stihl Blower xiii. Air Compressor xiv. (1) Shop Vacuum xv. Hand held paint sprayer xvi. Bike Helmet xvii. 3 Ton Jack xviii. Sander xix. Air Fryer xx. Basement Entertainment Center"

The district court did not order spousal support.

The following month, Husband filed a motion for reconsideration disputing four findings in the decree of divorce: (1) marital home settlement; (2) division of personal property; (3) debt allocation; and (4) child support. The motion was premised on "K.S.A. 60-259 and/or K.S.A. 60-260."

First, regarding the marital home, Husband claimed that the district court erred in basing its division of the home equity award on the finding that Wife had been solely responsible for the mortgage and upkeep of the marital home since May 2024. Second, Husband argued that the personal property distribution was inequitable because Wife received all items that were not otherwise listed on the parties' petitions. Third, Husband alleged that he was assigned an unfair amount of debt, resulting in him being responsible for 75% and Wife only 25%. Finally, Husband argued that the child support calculation was incorrect because, although the parenting plan states that the parties have equal parenting time, the schedule does not actually provide equal parenting time, and Husband

5

gets 142 overnight visits per year, which meets the 35% threshold for a child support adjustment under the Kansas Child Support Guidelines.

Posttrial hearing

In May 2025, the district court heard oral arguments on the motion for reconsideration in which Husband challenged the allocation of roughly $124,000 in home equity and Wife's receipt of all additional equity from the sale of the home. Husband asked the court to reconsider and award him a fair share of the equity, arguing that Wife used a valuation amount which he suggested should have been higher because the home was being listed on the market for $635,000 (after a posttrial appraisal valued it at $633,000). Husband also claimed that Wife did not assume the mortgage payments until June 2024, while he had been financially responsible throughout the marriage and carried the primary financial burden during that time.

Next, Husband argued that the division of personal property was unfair because he had been unable to return to the marital home since June 2024 due to a no-contact order and therefore had no opportunity to retrieve his belongings. He contended that the court's award of only 20 items failed to account for the remainder of his personal property, including tools, a computer, and irreplaceable personal belongings. Husband also asserted that the equalization payment did not adequately consider that he was never given a chance to properly move out or take anything from the home.

Finally, Husband argued that he was assigned a disproportionate share of the marital debt, despite the debts being marital obligations that should have been shared between the parties.

The district court first explained that a motion to reconsider is not a recognized motion but is instead treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district

6

court added that such motions are granted only in limited circumstances, such as when newly discovered facts could not have been discovered at trial, there has been a manifest error of fact, or the law has changed. The district court explained that none of those situations existed and that all issues Husband raised could have been presented and resolved at trial but were not. The district court further explained as follows:

"[T]he appraisal that was conducted on the home could have been presented to the Court at the time of trial had reasonable diligence occurred on [Husband's] part to present that information. The Court had to make its determination on what was presented at the time of trial and it made its determination at that time.

"Again, the Court did consider the financial contributions that both parties made, but just because one party did not work or did not financially contribute during the marriage, that is not a reason to give you more money of the equity. The reason that she gets the equity in addition, the Court determined was because that was the date of separation and that was the date that the Court is valuing the home."

The district court found no reason under the law to alter its judgment and denied Husband's motion.

Husband appealed both the divorce decree and the district court's denial of the motion to reconsider. However, he has abandoned any claim of error related to the motion to reconsider for failing to brief it. See In re Marriage of Williams, 307 Kan. 960, 977, 417 P.3d 1033 (2018) (Issues not adequately briefed are deemed abandoned.).

ANALYSIS

In considering any appeal, appellate courts are confined to the official record on appeal that has been submitted to it for consideration. The party challenging the district court's decision has the duty to designate the necessary transcripts. So here, Husband bears that duty. See State v. Carr, 314 Kan. 744, Syl. ¶ 19, 502 P.3d 511 (2022) ("A party

7

challenging the ruling of the district court is responsible for developing an adequate record for appeal."); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 3.03(a) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 22) (appellant's duty to request any transcripts necessary for appeal); see also K.S.A. 60-2104 (content and preparation of record on appeal governed by Kansas Supreme Court rules).

Husband filed three requests for the record on appeal, which collectively identified five items to be included: (1) all exhibits admitted at trial, (2) the motion to reconsider, (3) the motion for a hearing filed on March 28, 2025, (4) the consulting contract presented at trial, and (5) the transcript for the posttrial hearing. All those records were included. Yet, neither the Appellate Clerk's System nor the record shows that a trial transcript was requested. Husband's appellate brief does not make any mention of the trial transcript either but relies solely on the documents he requested be part of the record on appeal. Although we will attempt to resolve Husband's claims from the existing record, omission of this key court document may hinder meaningful appellate review of some of the issues raised on appeal.

This may seem harsh, especially in light of the fact that both parties to this dispute are self-represented litigants. But "[a] pro se litigant is held to the same standard as other parties and is required to follow the same rules of procedure as a party represented by counsel." In re Marriage of Vargas, 20 Kan. App. 2d 480, 487, 891 P.2d 462 (1994). This includes suffering the consequences for failing to designate a necessary record on appeal. See Kline v. Bergstrom, No. 126,878, 2024 WL 4579310, at *7 (Kan. App. 2024) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 320 Kan. 862 (2025). With that caveat, we will proceed to examine Husband's claims.

Husband makes four claims: the district court: (1) failed to comply with K.S.A.

60-252(a) and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 165 (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 232); (2) erred in finding Wife was solely responsible for the mortgage and upkeep since May 2024; (3) abused its discretion in valuing the marital home at $484,000; and (4) erred in calculating

8

child support. Both Husband's second and third issues challenge the underlying property division ruling, but present different arguments. To avoid repetition, the second and third arguments are organized under one issue—the district court's division of the marital property.

I. We are unable to conclude that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The district court has a duty to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record to explain the court's decision on contested matters. Those findings can be stated on the record or in the opinion. See Supreme Court Rule 165(a); K.S.A. 60- 252(a)(1) ("[T]he court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of evidence, or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court.").

Husband argues that the district court failed to comply with K.S.A. 60-252(a) and Supreme Court Rule 165 by omitting controlling findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its property division and child support decisions in the divorce decree. He argues that the divorce decree states conclusions without the necessary findings showing what evidence was credited, how conflicting proof was reconciled, or what legal standards were applied under K.S.A. 23-2802. According to Husband, this precludes meaningful appellate review which requires reversal and remand for the district court to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Mies v. Mies, 217 Kan. 269, 275, 535 P.2d 432 (1975) (If the lack of adequate findings prevents meaningful review, the result is reversal and remand for a new trial on all issues.).

Husband appears to misconstrue the rule as a requirement that the district court must detail all its findings of fact and conclusions of law in the written journal entry of the divorce decree. Contrary to Husband's contention, neither Rule 165(a) nor K.S.A. 60-

9

252(a) requires that such findings and conclusions appear in the court's written journal entry for its divorce decree. Rather, K.S.A. 60-252(a)(1) states that such "findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of evidence, or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court." (Emphases added.) In other words, the written journal entry is not necessarily the exclusive source of the district court's findings of fact or conclusions of law. Therefore, the relevant findings or conclusions that Husband asserts are necessary and omitted may have been stated orally during the trial proceedings, and in regard to appellate review, those statements might also appear in transcripts.

Here, however, there is no trial transcript in the appellate record. As a result, this court cannot determine whether the district court made additional oral findings, what other evidence was presented, or what arguments were raised and addressed at trial. See Kelly v. VinZant, 287 Kan. 509, 526, 197 P.3d 803 (2008) ("An appellant has the burden to designate a record sufficient to establish the claimed error; without such a record, the claim of error fails."). Accordingly, Husband's first claim of error fails. See Kelly, 287 Kan. at 526.

That said, the written journal entry and divorce decree appear to be sufficient.

When dividing property, the divorce decree reflects that the district court considered the factors under K.S.A. 23-2802(c). The district court included its factual finding that Wife was solely "responsible for the mortgage and upkeep of the marital home" since May 2024. In addition to awarding the property to Wife, the district court ordered that she alone assume responsibility for the mortgage payments, liens, and any obligations tied to the property, thereby relieving Husband's obligation for that debt, although creditors could still pursue either party. Also, the district court ordered Wife to refinance the marital home within 90 days and to pay Husband a $62,448 equalization payment within 120 days. If Wife failed to satisfy either condition, the home was to be

10

sold and proceeds divided as stated in the decree—equal split of equity up to $124,897, with any excess awarded to Wife. The decree explained that the district court received the parties' evidence, reviewed the court file, and was well and fully advised in the premises. This explains the basis for the property division.

Husband conflates factual findings required under K.S.A. 60-252 with the substantial competent evidence standard. Husband also argues that the district court did not make findings explaining why it relied solely on a county tax valuation—an imprecise and nonmarket measure of value—instead of ordering or considering an independent appraisal despite contested valuations. A district court need not detail in its journal entry every evidentiary consideration or expressly explain how conflicting evidence was weighed.

As for the child support, the journal entry includes the child support worksheet and lists relevant provisions of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines. Therefore, it does not appear that the district court left any unresolved facts or issues. Nor did it fail to articulate the legal basis for its decisions. Husband fails to show that the district court did not provide adequate factual findings or conclusions of law.

II. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing marital property.

Husband challenges the district court's valuation and division of the marital home, asserting that the court reached an incorrect value and inequitable equity allocation through an improper valuation approach and reliance on insufficient or outdated valuation evidence. The valuation is addressed first, followed by the factual findings argument.

11

We review the district court's ruling for an abuse of discretion.

Appellate courts review a district court's property division ruling for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Thrailkill, 57 Kan. App. 2d 244, 261, 452 P.3d 392 (2019). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. The party asserting the district court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion. In re A.S., 319 Kan. 396, 400, 555 P.3d 732 (2024).

An error of law occurs when the district court's decision is guided by erroneous legal standards or conclusions. In re Estate of Einsel, 304 Kan. 567, Syl. ¶ 1, 374 P.3d 612 (2016). Therefore, even when applying the abuse of discretion standard, this court applies de novo review to the district court's legal conclusions. See State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 236, 144 P.3d 634 (2006) (applying de novo review to statutory interpretation in an abuse of discretion review). But when a district court makes factual findings related to a property division ruling, we review those findings for substantial competent evidence. See In re Marriage of Wherrell, 274 Kan. 984, 987, 58 P.3d 734 (2002). Substantial competent evidence refers to legal and relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. Granados v. Wilson, 317 Kan. 34, 41, 523 P.3d 501 (2023). When reviewing for substantial competent evidence, this court does not weigh conflicting evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or redetermine questions of fact. 317 Kan. at 41.

Husband fails to show the district court erred in its property division regarding the marital home.

Husband claims the court committed a legal error and its decision was unreasonable. He claims it was a legal error to use inconsistent valuation periods to divide the home equity. He separately argues that although the district court can choose

12

the valuation date, its "'mixing timeframes'" approach was facially unreasonable. Specifically, he argues that the district court set a valuation/equity split (50/50 up to $124,897) using an earlier baseline but then credited Wife for: post-May mortgage principal reduction and post-May appreciation. According to Husband, this valuation resulted in an inequitable division.

Wife counters that the valuation of the marital home was within the court's discretion. She adds that Kansas law does not require a court to order an appraisal and that Husband failed to timely present alternative valuation evidence.

The division of marital property must be just and reasonable, but it need not be equal. The district court has broad discretion to determine what is just and reasonable. In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 266 Kan. 347, 353-54, 969 P.2d 880 (1998). Discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the court. In re Marriage of Sadecki, 250 Kan. 5, 8, 825 P.2d 108 (1992).

All property of married persons becomes marital property upon commencement of divorce proceedings. K.S.A. 23-2801(a); In re Marriage of Meek, 320 Kan. 313, Syl. ¶ 2, 567 P.3d 252 (2025). The district court must consider the following factors when making its division of marital property:

"(1) The age of the parties; (2) the duration of the marriage; (3) the property owned by the parties; (4) their present and future earning capacities; (5) the time, source and manner of acquisition of property; (6) family ties and obligations; (7) the allowance of maintenance or lack thereof; (8) dissipation of assets; (9) the tax consequences of the property division upon the respective economic circumstances of the parties; and (10) such other factors as the court considers necessary to make a just and reasonable division of property." K.S.A. 23-2802(c).

13

Kansas law governing the valuation and property division in divorce actions does not specify a method for the district court to use in determining value. See K.S.A. 23- 2802. But because a district court's factual findings must be supported by substantial competent evidence, the values that the district court assigns to marital property should be within the range of evidence before the court. In re Marriage of Wherrell, 274 Kan. at 987; In re Marriage of Schwien, 17 Kan. App. 2d 498, 509, 839 P.2d 541 (1992). And further, because we do not reweigh the evidence, as long as there is substantial evidence to support a district court's valuation of marital property, this court will uphold that determination even when contrary evidence is presented. See In re Marriage of Kuzanek, 279 Kan. 156, 160, 105 P.3d 1253 (2005); In re Marriage of Knoll, 52 Kan. App. 2d 930, 937, 381 P.3d 490 (2016).

a. Valuation

The selection of an appropriate valuation date is fact-intensive and left to the district court's discretion. In re Marriage of Cray, 254 Kan. 376, 387, 867 P.2d 291 (1994). The district court sets "a valuation date to be used for all assets at trial, which may be the date of separation, filing or trial as the facts and circumstances of the case may dictate." K.S.A. 23-2802(b). Additionally, the statute allows the district court to consider evidence about changes in value of various assets before and after the valuation date in making the division of property. K.S.A. 23-2802(b).

Here, the district court selected the date of filing—May 8, 2024—as the valuation date for the marital home and later explained at the posttrial hearing that it determined this "was the date of separation and that was the date that the Court is valuing the home."

The district court therefore acted within its discretion by selecting the parties'

separation date as the valuation date for the marital home.

14

That said, the arithmetic reflected in Wife's domestic relations affidavit corresponds to the figures in the decree. She listed the home's value as $484,300, then subtracted the note balance—$330,345—and after accounting for a 6% cost of sale, indicated the resulting equity of $124,897, which when split equally resulted in the same amount as the equalization payment that the district court ordered Wife to make to Husband—$62,448.

Unlike the unpublished case relied on by Husband, In re Marriage of Elfgren and Hendrickson, No. 126,458, 2024 WL 2789635, at *8-9 (Kan. App. 2024) (unpublished opinion), the record does not demonstrate that different valuation dates were applied to different components of the same asset. Rather, the figures reflected in the decree correspond to a single valuation snapshot in the parties' written submissions.

The district court selected the parties' separation date as the valuation date, determined Wife was responsible for the residence from that date forward, and valued the property based on the evidence presented at trial, including the county tax valuation. The resulting equity allocation flowed directly from this unified framework, and the posttrial hearing transcript confirms the district court's reasoning as a single, interrelated decision on valuation, responsibility, and distribution. There was no legal error, and it cannot be said that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court. Husband's claim fails.

Husband fails to show the district court lacked substantial competent evidence.

a. County tax appraisal and posttrial appraisal

Husband raises several related arguments challenging the district court's actual valuation of the marital home. He argues that the district court reached an incorrect value by relying on the county tax valuation rather than his posttrial appraisal. He also contends

15

that the district court's failure to consider his posttrial appraisal resulted in an inequitable decree. According to Husband, relying on only the tax assessment was unreasonable given contested valuations and the availability of more probative market evidence.

Wife argues the valuation of the marital home was within the court's discretion.

She adds that Kansas law does not require a court to order an appraisal and Husband failed to timely present alternative valuation evidence.

Husband does not cite any portion of the record showing that, at trial, he presented any evidence supporting a different valuation for the marital home. Therefore, Husband's claim that there were other valuations and more probative market evidence available lacks support in the record. Any attempt to reconstruct the district court's reasoning from the limited record would necessarily require speculation, which this court cannot do. See In re Marriage of Bush, 62 Kan. App. 2d 284, 291, 513 P.3d 494 (2022) (the absence of a trial transcript requires speculation about the district court's rulings, which is impermissible); In re Marriage of Vandenberg, 43 Kan. App. 2d 697, 715, 229 P.3d 1187 (2010).

To the extent that Husband relies on his posttrial motion to alter or amend the judgment, that motion pertains to "newly discovered evidence that is material for the moving party which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial." K.S.A. 60-259(a)(1)(E). He provides no argument why his posttrial appraisal could not have been produced with reasonable diligence. Husband also fails to support his argument with pertinent authority or show why his argument is sound despite a lack of supporting authority. See In re Adoption of T.M.M.H., 307 Kan. 902, 912, 416 P.3d 999 (2018). He simply asserts the district court should not have used the figure it did because county appraisals may not reflect actual market value later in the year. Accordingly, his claim fails. Still, the county tax appraisal in the appellate record supports the value reflected in the decree. The appraisal constitutes evidence that a

16

reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a valuation of $484,300. Accordingly, based on the limited record before this court, the valuation reflected in the decree is supported by substantial competent evidence. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in valuing the home at $484,300.

Although framed as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Husband's argument is largely a request to reweigh the valuation evidence and substitute his preferred appraisal for the valuation adopted by the district court. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence, assess witness credibility, or substitute their judgment for that of the district court. See Granados, 317 Kan. at 41.

b. Marital estate

Husband adds that the district court's order awarded nearly all of the household property to Wife and left him only a few items while assigning disproportionate debt without identifying the amounts or explaining the rationale. According to Husband the award is supported by vague valuation findings thus rendering review impossible and inequitable.

Again, Husband contends that the district court's findings are too vague to satisfy K.S.A. 60-252(a) and Supreme Court Rule 165, preventing meaningful appellate review. As earlier discussed, Husband fails to show that the district court left issues unresolved.

Although this is also framed as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Husband's argument is largely a request to reweigh the valuation evidence and substitute his preferred appraisal for the valuation adopted by the district court. As we have already pointed out, appellate courts do not reweigh evidence, assess witness credibility, or substitute their judgment for that of the district court.

17

And finally, if the district court failed to make additional factual findings or explained its reasoning during the divorce trial proceedings, those matters are not included in the appellate record because Husband failed to designate the trial transcript. Without it, this court cannot evaluate the district court's overall division of marital property and debts. While the record purportedly includes all admitted trial exhibits, they are presented without context, and it is impossible to determine whether, or how, they were relied upon by the district court in making its property and debt division. See In re Marriage of Bush, 62 Kan. App. 2d at 290-91; In re Marriage of Vandenberg, 43 Kan. App. 2d at 715.

Accordingly, Husband's claim fails.

c. Wife's responsibility for the marital home

Husband also challenges the district court's finding that Wife had been solely responsible for the mortgage and upkeep of the marital home since May 2024. In support of his argument, Husband relies on two record references: (1) his petition for divorce filed on May 8, 2024, stated that the parties cohabitated at the marital home; and (2) at the posttrial hearing, the district court did not dispute his argument that it was instead June 2024 in which Wife took over financial responsibility for the home.

Wife counters that the district court's findings regarding responsibility for the mortgage and upkeep were supported by the record. Wife adds that credibility determinations are within the exclusive province of the district court, and minor factual disputes are not reversible error.

Although filed on May 8, 2024, Husband attested as of April 7, 2024, in his petition that the parties were cohabitating in the marital home, and Wife did not dispute that fact when she filed her response in June 2024. Contrary to Husband's assertion,

18

however, the district court made no finding that Wife alone made the May 2024 mortgage payment. Rather, the decree recognized that, following the parties' separation, Wife assumed responsibility for the mortgage and upkeep of the marital home. The May 2024 date mirrors the valuation date identified in the district court's pretrial order.

The existing record does not contain any testimony that may have been presented at trial or the district court's oral findings. Consequently, the court cannot review how the district court weighed competing evidence of the parties' respective contributions after separation. Husband simply asserts the district court erred, which is insufficient to remedy deficiencies in the record on appeal. See Smith v. Printup, 254 Kan. 315, 353, 866 P.2d 985 (1993). Thus, Husband's claim fails.

III. The district court did not err by basing child support off imputed income.

Finally, Husband argues that the district court improperly calculated child support by using an assumed higher wage rather than his actual income from 1099 contract work less reasonable business expenses. He also argues that the district court effectively imputed income without making the findings necessary to support imputation under the Kansas Child Support Guidelines.

Wife argues that the child support calculation was supported by evidence and complied with the Kansas Child Support Guidelines. She argues consideration of earning capacity is permitted, and Husband has not shown an abuse of discretion.

Child support obligations in a divorce action are governed by statute and guidelines established by our Supreme Court. See generally K.S.A. 23-3001 et seq. (governing court's obligation and authority to make provisions for child support); K.S.A. 20-165 (mandating Supreme Court to adopt rules establishing child support guidelines);

19

Kansas Child Support Guidelines (2025 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 103). The applicable standard of review depends on the question presented.

Appellate courts generally review a district court's child support award for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Thrailkill, 57 Kan. App. 2d at 257. Interpretation of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines presents a question of law subject to unlimited review. In re Marriage of L.F. and M.F., 65 Kan. App. 2d 175, 197-98, 562 P.3d 1014 (2025). The district court must use the Kansas Child Support Guidelines when determining the amount of child support but can deviate from the amount of child support listed in the Kansas Child Support Guidelines as long as the court justifies any deviation with specific written findings in the journal entry detailing how the deviation is in the child's best interests. Failure to make these findings is reversible error. In re Marriage of Thurmond, 265 Kan. 715, 716, 962 P.2d 1064 (1998); In re Marriage of Dean, 56 Kan. App. 2d 770, 773-74, 437 P.3d 46 (2018). Appellate courts review these findings for substantial competent evidence and to ensure they are sufficient to support the district court's conclusions of law. In re Marriage of Skoczek, 51 Kan. App. 2d 606, 607-08, 351 P.3d 1287 (2015). During that review, the appellate court will not weigh conflicting evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or redetermine questions of fact. 51 Kan. App. 2d at 608.

Husband contends the guidelines required the court to begin with his actual gross receipts and deduct reasonable business expenses, and that the court effectively imputed income without making the findings necessary to support imputation. Husband, however, relies on alleged trial testimony that he claims established he began contract work in December 2024 and presented the contract to the court.

Again, it is impossible to review this issue because the transcript of the trial is not included in the record on appeal. Without the transcript, this court is unable to conduct meaningful review of the district court's child support order. There are various exhibits

20

included in the record on appeal, including posttrial exhibits. Yet there is no context for those exhibits, nor is it possible to know if all of the included exhibits were admitted and considered by the district court. Without a transcript, this court cannot determine what evidence was presented regarding Husband's contract work, income, or business expenses; whether the parties disputed those figures; what findings the district court made concerning Husband's earning capacity; or how the district court arrived at the income figure used in its child-support calculation. See In re Marriage of Bush, 62 Kan. App. 2d at 290-91. Resolution of Husband's claims depends on those omitted proceedings; thus, Husband fails to provide a record sufficient to establish the claimed error.

The district court's decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.