Opinion
A20-1234
04-14-2021
Rebecca Ellen Bender, Appellant, v. Peter Howard Bernhard, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-000281147 Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Rebecca Ellen Bender (mother) and respondent Peter Howard Bernhard (father) divorced in 2004. The parties share a son who was then five years old. At the time, the parties' son had developmental delays consistent with autism spectrum disorder. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, mother received sole physical custody and sole legal custody of the child, subject to father's right to supervised parenting time. The parties went to trial in 2004 to resolve disagreements regarding child support, among other issues. In the judgment and decree, the district court ordered father to pay child support until "the child's emancipation or further Order of the Court." Mother appealed the order, and this court affirmed. Bender v. Bernhard, No. A05-1545, 2006 WL 1704114, at *6 (Minn. App. June 20, 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2006).
2. In 2017, when the parties' son was 18 years old, mother moved to continue child support. She argued that their son's needs warranted extending father's child-support obligation beyond the child's 18th birthday. In support of her motion, mother provided a diagnostic report that explained that the parties' son had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and that he had difficulty with daily living skills and socialization. A child-support magistrate agreed with mother that the now-adult child was "incapable of self-support" and accordingly extended father's child-support obligation. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 5 (2020) (providing that an adult child will still meet the definition of a "child" for the purpose of child support if he or she is "an individual who, by reason of physical or mental condition, is incapable of self-support"). But the magistrate also determined that "given [the adult child's] abilities, there is no need for this determination to be permanent." The magistrate ordered father to continue to pay child support until the parties' son "reaches the age of 21 or until further order." (Emphasis added.) The district court adopted the child-support magistrate's decision.
3. On June 26, 2019, when the parties' son was nearly 21 years old, mother again moved to extend child support on the basis that the adult child was incapable of self-support. In support of her motion, mother submitted to the district court: an affidavit by mother; a 2016 autism spectrum disorder diagnostic report; a 2019 autism diagnostic report; and a 2017 email in which the doctor treating the parties' son summarized the adult child's medical conditions. In her affidavit, mother also informed the court that she had applied for Social Security benefits on behalf of the parties' son but that the request was still pending.
4. In an order dated September 10, 2019, the district court denied mother's motion based on its determination that the parties' adult son was "capable of self-support." Mother appealed and this court affirmed. Bender v. Bernhard, No. A19-1611, 2020 WL 3409243, at *1 (Minn. App. June 22, 2020).
5. Following our decision, mother moved the district court to reopen the September 10, 2019 child-support order on the basis of newly discovered evidence, citing Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2) (2020). Alternatively, mother relied on Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b). The evidence consisted of a May 1, 2020 letter from the Social Security Administration (the SSA) determining that the parties' son is entitled to monthly Social Security benefits based on disability and a document titled Disability Determination Explanation. Mother received both documents after the district court's September 2019 order denying her motion to continue child support. The Disability Determination Explanation included information from professionals that had seen the adult child. Some of the information, including information from the adult child's psychologist, postdated the district court's September 2019 order. The document explains that the SSA concluded that the adult child is disabled because he is "incapable" of substantial gainful activity. In a memorandum accompanying her motion, mother argued that this "relevant, non-cumulative, newly discovered evidence from the SSA . . . will have a probable effect on the result of [mother's] Motion to Continue Child Support."
6. In an order dated September 1, 2020, the district court denied mother's motion without a hearing. Without mentioning or explicitly applying Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2), or Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b), the district court concluded that the SSA evidence was not "new evidence." The district court then explained that "[b]ecause no new evidence has been brought to the Court's attention, the Court will consider [mother's] motion as a request to file a motion for reconsideration under Rule 115.11, Minnesota Rules of General Practice." Finding that mother had not met the standard for reconsideration, the district court denied mother's motion.
7. Mother now appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to reopen the September 10, 2019 child-support order. She contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to review the September 10, 2019 order in light of the SSA's subsequent determination that the parties' son is eligible for Social Security benefits based on disability. Specifically, mother argues that the SSA's determination and accompanying explanation constitute newly discovered evidence under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2), or Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b), and meet the requirements for reopening the record.
8. We first address whether mother's motion to reopen the child-support order was properly brought under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2). This statute authorizes a district court to reopen an order arising from a marriage dissolution proceeding on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Section 518.145, subdivision 2, provides the following:
On motion and upon terms as are just, the court may relieve a party from a judgment and decree, order, or proceeding under this chapter, except for provisions dissolving the bonds of marriage, annulling the marriage, or directing that the parties are legally separated, and may order a new trial or grant other relief as may be just for the following reasons:
. . . .
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59.03[.]Father argues that mother's motion was not properly brought under Minn. Stat. § 518.145 (2020) because that statutory provision "expressly links relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence . . . to a party's right to seek a new trial under Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.03." He contends that because a motion for a new trial under rule 59 is not permissible for "special proceedings," such as proceedings concerning a request for child-support modification, "it follows that relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence should not be available where a party could not have moved for a trial in the first instance." We are not persuaded.
9. We conclude that mother properly brought her motion to reopen the child-support order under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2), for the following reasons. First, Minn. Stat. § 518A.38, subd. 6 (2020), which addresses the reopening of child-support awards, expressly provides that "[s]ection 518.145, subdivision 2, applies to awards of child support." That language is unqualified. Moreover, Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2, states that following a party's motion, the district court "may order a new trial or grant other relief as may be just." (Emphasis added.) Read in conjunction with Minn. Stat. § 518A.38, subd. 6, this language plainly permits a district court to reopen a child-support order notwithstanding the fact that child-support modification proceedings do not involve trials. Father fails to cite any case law that provides a party may not move to reopen a child-support order in a modification proceeding under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2. And we are aware of no case law that would preclude mother's motion. Accordingly, we conclude that mother was permitted to bring her motion to reopen the child-support order under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2).
Because we conclude that mother properly brought her motion to reopen the child-support award under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2), we need not address whether Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b) provides a basis for the motion.
10. We next consider whether the district court abused its discretion in denying mother's motion to reopen the child-support order to review newly discovered evidence. This court reviews a district court's decision not to reopen a judgment or child-support order arising from a dissolution proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Krech v. Krech, 624 N.W.2d 310, 311 (Minn. App. 2001) (citing Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379, 386 (Minn. 1996)). "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record." Knapp v. Knapp, 883 N.W.2d 833, 835 (Minn. App. 2016).
11. Along with her motion to reopen the child-support order, mother submitted two documents that postdated the court's September 2019 order—the SSA's May 1, 2020 determination that the parties' son was eligible for Social Security benefits based on disability and the SSA's Disability Determination Explanation. The district court concluded that the SSA documents did not contain "new evidence." The court noted that it was aware that the SSA application was pending when it issued the September 2019 order. The court then stated, "The only new information is that [the adult child] is now receiving those benefits. No new information regarding [the adult child's] condition, his ability to work, or his ability to be self-supporting has been proffered." The court further reasoned that "[t]he information regarding [the adult child's] condition provided in the Social Security Income documents . . . essentially restate the information provided to this Court in submissions for the August 19, 2019, hearing." Consequently, the district court concluded that the SSA documents did not contain "new evidence" because, in its view, "[t]he underlying facts relied upon by this Court in determining whether [the adult child] is incapable of self-support remain unchanged."
12. The district court's determination that mother's filing did not contain any "new evidence" and that "the Social Security Income documents . . . essentially restate the information provided to this Court in submissions for the August 19, 2019, hearing" is contrary to the record. The SSA's Disability Determination Explanation contained several entries from the adult-child's psychologist that postdated the district court's September 10, 2019 order. Among other topics, the entries discussed that the adult child began a new job and was experiencing difficulties at work related to his social skills and behavior. This new information in the SSA's Disability Determination Explanation goes directly to the adult child's condition, ability to work, and/or his ability to be self-supporting. Similarly, the SSA's disability determination that the adult child is disabled and incapable of substantial gainful activity itself provides new evidence regarding the child's ability to be self-supporting. See McConnell v. McConnell, 710 N.W.2d 583, 586 (Minn. App. 2006) (noting that a Social Security disability determination is "reasonable evidence supporting [a party's] claim that he is unable to become self-supporting"). Because mother presented new evidence regarding whether the adult child is incapable of self-support that postdates the district court's September 2019 order, the district court's determination that mother presented "no new evidence" is contrary to logic and facts in the record. As a result, the district court abused its discretion by determining that mother's filing did not contain any new evidence.
13. Given that mother's filing included new evidence regarding the adult child's condition, ability to work, and/or his ability to be self-supporting, the district court erred by treating mother's motion as a motion for reconsideration and not applying Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2). We therefore reverse and remand for the district court to consider the SSA determination and the contents of the SSA's Disability Determination Explanation and analyze whether this newly discovered evidence warrants relief under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(2). The district court may make its decision based on the parties' existing filings without reopening the record.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is reversed and remanded.
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.
Dated: April 14, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Jeanne M. Cochran