Summary
holding COLA for support obligations mandatory if statute applied unless obligor could demonstrate insufficient increase to support adjustment
Summary of this case from IN RE MARRIAGE OF HAUSOpinion
No. C7-94-2063.
April 11, 1995.
Appeal from the District Court, Washington County, John E. Cass, J.
Mark J. Vierling, Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff Vierling, Stillwater, for appellant.
Robert Q. Dickie, Dickie Schulze, Woodbury, for respondent.
OPINION
Bridget Huizinga appeals from an order adjusting John Huizinga's child support obligation based on the increase in cost of living during the previous two years. Bridget Huizinga argues that the adjustment should have been based on the increase in cost of living during the six-year period between entry of the dissolution judgment and service of the notice of cost of living adjustment on John Huizinga. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
The parties' marriage was dissolved in February 1988. The dissolution judgment required respondent John Huizinga to pay $1,100 per month for child support and provided for a biennial adjustment of child support based on a change in the cost of living pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518.641.
In March 1994, appellant Bridget Huizinga served a notice of cost of living adjustment on respondent. The notice stated that the adjustment would be based on the 21% increase in the cost of living during the previous six years and would become effective May 1, 1994. At respondent's request, the district court conducted a hearing to determine whether appellant was entitled to the entire cost-of-living adjustment she sought.
The district court found that it had insufficient information to determine respondent's current income. The court increased respondent's monthly child support obligation by $71.50 based on the increase in cost of living from January 1992 to January 1994. The court concluded that any further adjustment to respondent's child support obligation required a motion for modification of child support.
ISSUE
Did the district court err by adjusting respondent's child support obligation based on the increase in cost of living during only the past two years?
ANALYSIS
A child support order
shall provide for a biennial adjustment in the amount to be paid based on a change in the cost of living.
Minn.Stat. § 518.641, subd. 1 (Supp. 1993).
If * * * the obligor establishes an insufficient cost of living or other increase in income that prevents fulfillment of the adjusted * * * child support obligation, the court may direct that all or part of the adjustment not take effect.
Minn.Stat. § 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. The court concluded that Minn.Stat. § 518.641
does not preclude the district court from adjusting a support obligation based on the cost-of-living increase over a period greater than two years where no prior cost-of-living adjustment has been made.
Id.
Here, the district court interpreted Braatz as giving the court discretion to decide whether to implement a cost-of-living increase for a time period longer than two years. But under Minn.Stat. § 518.641, the district court's discretion
is limited to determining whether all or part of the cost-of-living adjustment should not take effect. The obligor has the burden of showing why a cost-of-living adjustment should be reduced.
Braatz, 489 N.W.2d at 264 (citation omitted). A cost-of-living adjustment shall take effect unless the obligor establishes an insufficient increase in income. Minn.Stat. § 518.641, subd. 3.
The district court did not find that appellant waived her right to a cost-of-living adjustment pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518.641. See Braatz, 489 N.W.2d at 265 (party did not waive right to cost-of-living adjustment by delay). When Minn.Stat. § 518.641 applies, a cost-of-living adjustment to a child support obligation is mandatory unless the obligor establishes an insufficient increase in income. Minn.Stat. § 518.641, subd. 3. Respondent did not satisfy his burden under the statute.
Because the district court incorrectly interpreted Braatz, it did not inquire about respondent's income. We, therefore, remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, we direct the court to allow the parties to present evidence needed to determine the appropriate cost-of-living adjustment pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518.641, subds. 1, 3.
DECISION
The district court improperly applied Minn.Stat. § 518.641. The court erred in denying part of the cost-of-living adjustment sought by appellant without requiring respondent to show an insufficient increase in income to support the adjustment.
Reversed and remanded.