Minn.Stat. ยง 518.641, subd. 3 (1992). In Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 265 (Minn.App. 1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992), this court affirmed the district court's adjustment of the obligor's child support obligation based on the increase in the cost-of-living during the previous four years.
She argues that she was entitled to a retroactive COLA because she provided the statutory COLA notice and husband neither objected nor produced evidence regarding whether the COLA should be implemented. We initially note that the two cases upon which wife relies, Huizinga v. Huizinga , 529 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. App. 1995), and Braatz v. Braatz , 489 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992), are distinguishable.
In reviewing a child-support magistrate's decision or a district court's decision on a cost-of-living adjustment, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264-65 (Minn.App. 1992) (noting that district court has discretion to determine whether COLA should take effect), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992) ; McClenahan v. Warner, 461 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn.App. 1990) (noting same).
A CSM's discretion is limited to whether the COLA should take effect. Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992).
The obligor bears the burden of showing why the presumptively applicable COLA should not take effect. Huizinga v. Huizinga, 529 N.W.2d 512, 514 (Minn.App. 1995) (citing Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 165 (Minn.App. 1992)). Under the statute, the obligor must show an "insufficient . . . increase in income" that "prevents fulfillment of the adjusted . . . obligation.
The district court's decision to grant or deny a cost of living adjustment is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264-65 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992).
1999). If the obligor fails to request a hearing on the issue of whether the adjustment should take effect, the adjustment may be made. Minn. Stat. ยง 518.641, subd. 2(c). If the obligor requests a hearing, the district court's discretion "is limited to determining whether all or part of the cost-of-living adjustment should not take effect." Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1992).
The discretion of the district court is limited to determining whether all or part of the COLA increase should take effect. Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992).