Opinion
A24-0222
07-09-2024
In re the Marriage of: Robert Raymond Jackson, petitioner, Appellant, v. Kadi Beth Jackson, Respondent.
Scott County District Court File No. 70-FA-19-5499
Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant-father Robert Raymond Jackson and respondent-mother Kadi Beth Jackson are the parents of three joint minor children. In 2020, the district court dissolved the parties' marriage by stipulated judgment and decree. The judgment and decree provides that father has a basic child-support obligation of $495 monthly as of June 1, 2021, must maintain the children's health and dental insurance with a monthly contribution from mother, and is responsible for all out-of-pocket medical costs for care from in-network providers and 66% of childcare costs. The judgment and decree also denotes father's monthly income as $10,933 and imputes mother's monthly income to $3,333 based on the parties' stipulation that she had the ability to work full-time earning between $39,000 and $42,000.
2. On September 6, 2023, father brought a motion to modify his child-support obligation and for contribution for medical costs of one of the children. Father sought modification because of a substantial change in his income. Father explained that he was no longer employed because he resigned from his job due to a medical condition preventing him from travel and that he was now a full-time student pursuing a graduate degree in teaching. He noted that he could no longer provide insurance for the children but that coverage was available through his spouse, and he requested that mother pay half of that premium and half of any out-of-pocket medical and dental expenses. Father also requested a change in childcare costs because he was available to watch the children during mother's parenting time when she would otherwise need childcare. In support of his modification request, father attached an email setting forth his resignation from his prior employer, a worksheet reflecting degree and licensure requirements for his graduate program, and information related to his spouse's insurance premiums.
3. On September 28, mother filed a motion to deny father's motion, to modify father's child-support obligation, for a judgment for child-support arrears, to order attorney fees, and for father's contribution for other expenses.
4. On October 6, a child-support magistrate heard the motions. At the hearing, father noted that mother's responsive motions were untimely. Father testified that he did not submit income information because his income was less than mother's income and that he was taking seven credits at school and was a full-time student. Father also argued that mother was underemployed. The child-support magistrate noted that the necessity of father quitting his former job was unclear and afforded father three weeks to submit a doctor's note detailing the extent of his work restrictions. The child-support magistrate mentioned that father would want the issue resolved before her retirement.
5. On November 9, the child-support magistrate granted both cross-motions in part and set father's basic child support at $940 monthly and childcare support at $128 monthly. The child-support magistrate found that (1) father earned $207,821.43 in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2023, and was voluntarily underemployed with an ability to earn $17,318 in gross monthly income; (2) mother's average gross monthly income was $3,784 and she was not underemployed; and (3) the children could be added to father's spouse's health insurance at no extra cost. The child-support magistrate determined that father should continue to pay for ongoing childcare in accordance with the judgement and decree, that father would provide healthcare coverage but adjusted the division of out-of-pocket medical expenses between father and mother. And the child-support magistrate awarded mother conduct-based attorney fees.
6. On November 28, father moved for review of the November 9 order. Father also asked to provide additional information in support of his motion based, in part, on mother's responsive motion being untimely.
7. On December 12, a different child-support magistrate issued an order regarding review of the November 9 order. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 376.03 (providing that if an issuing child-support magistrate is unavailable, a motion for review may be assigned to another child-support magistrate). The second child-support magistrate largely affirmed the November 9 order, concluding that the challenged findings were supported by the record, and denied father's request to provide additional information. Father appeals, arguing that the second child-support magistrate erred by denying his request to supplement the record.
8. We review a district court's decision on modification of child support for an abuse of discretion. Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Minn. 2013). We will not disturb factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn.App. 2014). These same standards apply to the decision of a child-support magistrate. Hesse v. Hesse, 778 N.W.2d 98, 102 (Minn.App. 2009). A child-support magistrate abuses its discretion if it reaches "a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against the logic and the facts in the record." Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814, 820 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted). In reviewing an order deciding a motion for review, "this court reviews the order from which the appeal is taken" and "to the extent the reviewer of the [child-support magistrate's] original decision affirms the [child-support magistrate's] original decision, that original decision becomes the decision of the reviewer." Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 673 N.W.2d 528, 530 n.2 (Minn.App. 2004).
9. A reviewing child-support magistrate "shall make an independent review of any findings or other provisions of the underlying decision and order for which specific changes are requested in the motion" based on the underlying decision, a transcript or audio or video recording of the hearing, and "any exhibits and affidavits filed." Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 377.09, subds. 2, 3. The reviewing child-support magistrate may consider additional evidence at their discretion. Id., subd. 4.
10. The second child-support magistrate denied father's request to provide additional information because he "was the moving party and had the burden to provide necessary information with his filing," noting that the record was left open for three weeks. Father argues that this is an abuse of discretion because mother's response to his motion was untimely, and he misunderstood what information he could submit after the evidentiary hearing and when he was required to submit the additional information. We disagree.
11. Minnesota Rule of General Practice 372.05, subd. 3, directs that all responsive motions "be served upon all parties at least 7 days before the hearing" and those raising new issues "be served upon all parties at least 14 days before the hearing." Mother served her responsive motions on father by mail on September 27, nine days before the October 6 hearing. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 355.03 (stating that service by U.S. mail is complete upon mailing); Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 354.01(a) (governing computation of time periods under the rules). Thus, mother complied with the timing requirements for responsive motions generally, but not timing requirements for raising new issues. But the November 9 order is limited to the issues raised by father-his change in circumstance and request for modification on those grounds and related relief. Mother's request to modify child-support obligations was already at issue because father sought modification in his initial motion. Thus, the second child-support magistrate did not abuse their discretion by denying father's request to submit additional information on timeliness grounds.
12. And the second child-support magistrate did not abuse their discretion by concluding that father failed to meet his burden to support his motion to modify child support. See Rose v. Rose, 765 N.W.2d 142, 145 (Minn.App. 2009) (stating that the party seeking modification of a child-support order bears the burden to show "a substantial change in circumstances and the unfairness and unreasonableness of the order because of the change"). At the hearing, father testified but did not offer substantive information beyond his initial application despite the first child-support magistrate's attempts to elicit more information. We note that the record remained open for three weeks to allow father to submit additional information about his work restrictions, and he did not do so. We also note that father did not make an offer of proof that he would have or could have submitted additional information to satisfy the concerns identified by either child-support magistrate. 13. To the extent that father challenges other factual findings in the November 9 order, those findings are supported by the record and are therefore not clearly erroneous. The record reflects father's gross-wage income from his primary employer was $207,821.43 from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023, that mother's average gross monthly income was properly calculated and consistent with her stipulated potential income, and that the children could be added to father's spouse's insurance at no additional cost. See In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22 (Minn. 2021) (discussing clear-error review of factual findings and stating that "an appellate court need not go into an extended discussion of the evidence to prove or demonstrate the correctness of the findings of the [district] court" (quotation omitted)); see also Ewald v. Nedrebo, 999 N.W.2d 546, 552 (Minn.App. 2023) (citing Kenney in a family-law appeal).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.