Opinion
A23-1920
09-09-2024
In re the Marriage of: Amira Ragheb Attia, petitioner, Respondent, v. Tarek Ahmed Moussa, Appellant.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-FA-19-2037
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Schmidt, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jon Schmidt, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Tarek Ahmed Moussa (husband) argues that the district court should have granted his motion for amended findings or a new trial, contending that the court erred or abused its discretion in six ways: (1) misvaluing the parties' homestead; (2) misvaluing the parties' business; (3) misstating the parties' incomes; (4) failing to award husband spousal maintenance; (5) assigning husband certain debt; and (6) failing to merge child support arrears in the dissolution judgment.
2. To obtain relief on appeal, husband bears the burden to establish that the district court abused its discretion and that he was thereby prejudiced. Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002); State v. Nowacki, 880 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn. 2016); see also Madden v. Madden, 923 N.W.2d 688, 696 (Minn.App. 2019) (stating that a district court abuses its discretion "if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record"). In other words, husband must demonstrate that the district court's findings are contrary to the record or that the court erred as a matter of law. Husband failed to do so.
3. Husband first argues that the district court misvalued the parties' homestead. Husband contends there was a substantial change in the homestead's value and the district court should have ordered a new valuation. Husband relies on Kitchar v. Kitchar, in which this court reversed the homestead division because "the trial court erroneously failed to consider the newly discovered gravel deposit when valuing the homestead." 553 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Minn.App. 1996), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). Unlike in Kitchar, husband's Zillow estimate was not admissible evidence and husband's testimony that the marital homestead is now valued at "600,000 probably" is not newly discovered evidence that constitutes a substantial change in the marital property value. Moreover, neither party objected to the district court setting a valuation date of December 19, 2019. When determining the value of the home, the district court used the appraisal provided by husband's expert. Husband's later request for the district court to use an inadmissible Zillow estimate did not also include a request to set a new valuation date. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in using the valuation date, valuing the home by using the appraisal provided by husband's expert, and in denying husband's motion for a new trial or amended findings.
4. Husband next argues that the district court abused its discretion in determining a value for the parties' business because the court failed to consider the factors set forth in Nardini v. Nardini, 414 N.W.2d 184, 189-90 (Minn. 1987). But husband did not produce detailed evidence to support his claim for the value of the business. Without such evidence, the district court was left to determine the value of the business based on the only evidence available: a spreadsheet provided by respondent Amira Ragheb Attia (wife). The district court valued the parties' business at $27,000. Husband contends that the most fair and equitable method of dividing the asset should have been to "reimburse" husband one half of his financial investment, allegedly $48,000, in the business. That argument fails because husband's argument that the district court should have given certain evidence more weight does not amount to an abuse of discretion. Instead, husband must show that the court was required to consider certain evidence and failed to do so. Antone, 645 N.W.2d at 100 (stating that the district court's division of property will be affirmed if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though an appellate court might have taken a different approach). In addition, the district court found husband's testimony to not be credible. As such, we will not second-guess the district court's weighing of conflicting evidence or its credibility determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) ("Deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses." (quoting Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the value of the business.
5. Husband next presents various arguments regarding the district court's determination of wife's income. For example, husband argues that the district court failed to include the $700 wife receives from her son for "living expenses." But husband cites to no evidence that leaves us "with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008) (quotations and citations omitted). Thus, we affirm the district court's determination of wife's income.
6. Husband also argues that the district court's denial of spousal maintenance must be reversed. We review a district court's award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Schmidt v. Schmidt, 964 N.W.2d 221, 226 (Minn.App. 2021). "A court abuses its discretion if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record." Sinda v. Sinda, 949 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Minn.App. 2020) (quotations omitted). We review a district court's findings of fact for clear error. Id. The record supports the district court's findings that husband received $841 monthly in supplemental security income benefits and $750 total in monthly assistance from Ramsey County. Husband testified that he relies on personal care attendants to perform daily living activities and cannot work due to his health conditions. But the district court reviewed hundreds of pages of husband's medical records, found husband's testimony conflicted with the evidence and was not credible, and found that husband overstated his condition and his inability to work. We defer to the district court's opportunity to evaluate the credibility of husband's testimony. See Wilson v. Moline, 47 N.W.2d 865, 870 (Minn. 1951) (stating the function of "an appellate court does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court's findings" and an appellate court's "duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence . . . and determine[s] that it reasonably supports the findings"). Because we defer to the district court's credibility finding and because the record supports the district court's denial of husband's request for spousal maintenance, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband's request for spousal maintenance.
7. Husband next argues that the district court abused its discretion in dividing debt between the parties. See Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009) (stating that a district court has "broad discretion regarding the division of property" and that its division of property "will only be reversed on appeal if the [district] court abused its discretion"). The district court determined that $75,742.26 of the approximately $104,000 cost-of-repairs debt for repairs to the parties' homestead constituted marital debt and the court assigned $37,871.13 of the debt to husband. Husband disputes this amount but offered no evidence to the district court to refute the evidence that the district court relied upon in determining that the expenses related to repairs to the homestead. Husband cites no evidence on appeal that leaves us "with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Goldman, 748 N.W.2d at 284 (quotations and citations omitted).
8. Husband lastly argues that the district court clearly erred in its order related to temporary child support. However, husband concedes that the district court did not merge the temporary child support order in the final judgment and decree. And, according to husband, the district court set "the proper amount of $60.00 per month" in the final judgment and decree. Based upon our review of the record, it appears that the district court properly considered husband's gross income-less 120% of the federal poverty guidelines-and correctly set husband's temporary child support at $60 per month. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subds. 1-2 (2022).
9. In its order, the district court noted that "[t]he record is replete with incomplete and contradictory facts that eroded the court's ability to discern truth from fiction." We are sympathetic to the untenable position that both parties put the district court in when neither party introduced compelling evidence, nor offered credible testimony; yet each party still asked the court to rule in their favor. The record demonstrates that the district court combed through the evidence and testimony available and fairly decided the issues presented. Husband has not met his burden to demonstrate the district court clearly erred with its factual findings and, therefore, did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion.
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.