Opinion
A21-0456
03-21-2022
In re the Marriage of: Reuben Sure Onyancha, petitioner, Appellant, v. Teresa Nyangara Mose, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-FA-20-497
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Bryan, Judge; and Kirk, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
LUCINDA E. JESSON, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Reuben Onyancha and respondent Teresa Mose were married in Kenya on April 23, 2006. They have two children ages 13 and 7 at the time of the complaint.
Mose did not file a brief, and this matter is proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 142.03.
2. Onyancha is employed by Wells Fargo and has a net monthly income of $5,445.32. Mose is a certified nursing assistant and has a net monthly income of roughly $2,000.
3. Onyancha filed for divorce, and a remote evidentiary hearing was held in December 2020. Mose requested that she receive temporary spousal maintenance in the amount of $1,000 per month. She requested temporary support so she could obtain additional education to become self-sufficient. The district court, after considering the factors under Minnesota Statutes section 518.552 (2020), found that Mose had monthly expenses of $2,760.20, leaving her with a roughly $760 shortfall. The district court determined that Onyancha had $4,790.95 in monthly expenses, or a roughly $600 surplus.
4. Due in part to Mose being the primary breadwinner while Onyancha was in graduate school, the district court concluded that Mose was entitled to $600 per month in temporary spousal maintenance for four years while she obtains additional training and education.
5. The district court also granted joint legal and joint physical custody of their two children based on an equal, agreed-upon parenting schedule.
6. Onyancha appeals. In a pro se brief, Onyancha alleges two main errors: that his spousal maintenance was incorrectly calculated, and that Mose is not following the agreed-upon parenting schedule. We review both claims for an abuse of discretion. Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997).
See Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.App. 2001) (stating that "[a]lthough some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules").
7. In determining whether a district court abused its discretion, we review legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Kampf v. Kampf, 732 N.W.2d 630, 633 (Minn.App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007). A finding is clearly erroneous if it is "manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole." Id. (quotation omitted).
8. Here, Onyancha challenges the calculation of his monthly salary and expenses. After reviewing his submitted bank statements and expenses, the district court determined that Onyancha has a net monthly income of $5,445.32 and $4,790.95 in monthly expenses.
Onyancha is not challenging the district court's consideration of the statutory factors guiding spousal maintenance. See Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2.
Onyancha argues that he does not know how he will be able to afford spousal maintenance payments once the federal freeze on student loan payments is over and he has to begin repaying his student loans. But his student loans were expressly considered in his monthly expenses by the district court.
9. Onyancha first argues that his net monthly income is actually $4,790.95. Not only is there no support in the record for this number, his bank statement demonstrates that he has a net monthly income higher than $4,790.95.
10. Next, Onyancha gives a line-item recitation of his monthly expenses that come to a different total than the district court. There is no support in the record before the district court for any of these expense figures listed in Onyancha's brief. We may not base our decision on matters that were not received into evidence by the district court and that are outside the record on appeal. In re Welfare of J.P.-S., 880 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn.App. 2016).
11. Similarly, Onyancha claims Mose owes him back rent and that his immigration attorney costs were not considered in the spousal maintenance calculation. But neither asserted expense is reflected in the record before the district court.
12. Because Onyancha's challenges to determine spousal maintenance are not supported by the record, the district court did not clearly err when calculating his monthly income or expenses.
13. Next, Onyancha argues that Mose is not following the terms of the parenting schedule agreed to by the parties and ordered by the court. Because Mose is not taking care of the children during her assigned times, Onyancha claims that he is due child support. Additionally, he asserts that Mose keeps changing her phone, making her hard to reach.
14. Even if we take Onyancha's assertions as true, he admits that the alleged lack of co-parenting by Mose and her shifting phone number occurred after the district court's order. Again, we may not base our decision on matters that were not received into evidence by the district court and that are outside the record on appeal. Id. This matter may instead be considered in a motion to modify child support at the district court level. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (2020) (stating that a child-support order may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that makes the order "unreasonable and unfair").
15. Because Onyancha raised issues that are outside the record on appeal, these arguments are not properly before this court, and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment 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.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.