exemptions to the parties, “it may be prudent to place the exemptions in the hands of the party who will most benefit,” but the district court is not required to do so. Illies v. Illies, 462 N.W.2d 878, 882 (N.D. 1990). Additionally, our case law shows a connection between the district court’s determination of child support payments and the allocation of tax dependency exemptions. State ex rel. Younger v. Bryant, 465 N.W.2d 155, 160 (N.D. 1991) (“Considering that the court has substantially increased Bryant’s support payments, we do not believe it was error to grant the exemption to Bryant in the manner it did. However, if the court on remand substantially reduces Bryant’s support payments, this issue could again be considered.”); Dunnuck v. Dunnuck, 2006 ND 247, ¶ 11, 724 N.W.2d 124 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 12] Matthew Johnson argues the district
holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes holding in part that a change in the mothers income that occurred after the trial was new evidence and that when a party has new evidence related to his or her income he or she may be entitled to a modification of a childsupport obligation if he or she files a petition to modify however because the mother had filed a postjudgment motion rather than a petition to modify her childsupport obligation her request to modify child support was not properly before the trial court holding that the testimony of an obligor as to amount of payments was sufficient evidence to support findings of actual support paid holding a party cannot attempt to modify the allocation of the income tax dependency exemption within the oneyear period imposed under ndcc  14090844 because allowing an obligor or obligee to parse various facets of a child support obligation through numerous chai lenges  would defeat the limited finality feature of the law holding that obligor who is incarcerated for crime other than failure to pay support should be relieved of obligation unless obligor has other income or assets