Opinion
No. C1-02-730.
Filed December 10, 2002.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. DC226859.
Richard D. Goff, Mary E. Cincotta, Richard D. Goff Associates, (for appellant)
Ann Morrice Allenson, Goldstein Law Office, P.A., (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant L. Sue Gooderum (wife) challenges the district court's order reducing the monthly child support obligation of respondent John Lee Gooderum (husband) and requiring wife to bear the full financial burden of medical and dental insurance for the parties' two minor children. Because the child support magistrate made insufficient findings concerning husband's current income, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
The 11-year marriage of husband and wife was dissolved by a stipulated judgment and decree entered July 13, 1999. The decree (1) granted wife physical custody of the parties' two minor children; (2) stated that husband's earning capacity was $40,000 and set husband's monthly child-support obligation at $500; and (3) provided that in the future, either party could move the district court to modify husband's support obligation based upon a de novo review of husband's ability to pay support.
At the time of the decree, wife's employer provided her with dental insurance for both children. The decree provided that husband would purchase dental and medical insurance for the children if such insurance became available through his employer, failing which the parties would purchase the insurance together and be equally responsible for premium costs.
Wife subsequently moved to increase, and husband to decrease, husband's child support obligation. At the hearing before a child support magistrate in July 2001, husband testified that he had been supplementing his income with an inheritance from his mother and a federal tax refund, both of unspecified amounts. Husband also claimed, without support, that he is 33% totally disabled from a 1979 gunshot wound, despite the fact that he stipulated in the 1999 dissolution decree to being "in good health and capable of self-support."
The magistrate found that husband was fully employed on the basis of a single June 2001 pay stub and husband's alleged disability. The magistrate calculated husband's current net monthly income on the basis of his 2000 tax return, which reflected husband's income from his previous job. The magistrate did not conduct a de novo review of husband's ability to pay support, as required by the dissolution decree. Instead, the magistrate concluded that the disparity between husband's 1999 earning capacity and his 2000 actual income rendered the 1999 support order presumptively unreasonable and unfair pursuant to the statutory standard for modifying child support. See Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (2002). The magistrate ordered husband's monthly child-support obligation reduced to $255.
We cite the 2002 versions of the statute sections involved herein, acknowledging that earlier versions were in effect when litigated below. The current version is not different from the earlier versions in any manner material to this case.
When wife sought review of the magistrate's decision, the district court adopted that decision by affirming it. Wife now challenges the district court's order, arguing that the magistrate erroneously determined husband's current ability to pay support and altered the dissolution decree to make wife wholly responsible for the children's medical insurance.
DECISION
We review a district court's order confirming a magistrate's decision regarding child support under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Davis v. Davis, 631 N.W.2d 822, 825-26 (Minn.App. 2001). We will not set aside a district court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous and will affirm a finding of net income if it has a reasonable basis in fact. Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01 (findings of fact); Strauch v. Strauch, 401 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Minn.App. 1987) (finding of net income).
A party moving for modification of a support order based on a change in circumstances "must provide sufficient proof of his present circumstances before any comparison can be made." Johnson v. Fritz, 406 N.W.2d 614, 616 (Minn.App. 1987). It is "essential that magistrates carefully examine the evidence presented by the parties and make thorough and accurate findings of fact" in determining an obligor's ability to pay support. See Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 348 (Minn. 2002).
The district court's determination of husband's present net income based on his 2000 tax return does not have a reasonable basis in fact. See Thomas v. Thomas, 407 N.W.2d 124, 127 (Minn.App. 1987) (holding that six-month-old tax return does not represent current income for calculation of support obligation).
After determining the obligor's monthly net income and applying the guidelines, a district court ruling on a motion for the modification of a support order must also consider "all earnings, income, and resources of the parents." Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c) (2002). Here, although husband testified that he supplemented his income with an inheritance and tax refunds, the district court did not consider these resources when determining husband's ability to pay support.
The district court's findings were insufficient to support its determination of husband's current net income and resources or to permit meaningful appellate review. We conclude that on the record before us, the district court abused its discretion by affirming the magistrate's modification of husband's support obligation. We therefore reverse the district court's order and remand for a determination of husband's ability to pay support based on the appropriate statutory factors. The district court may reopen the record and allow the parties to submit new evidence at its discretion.
After determining husband's current net income, the district court shall determine whether husband is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. If it finds that he is, the court shall impute income to husband pursuant to the terms of Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (2002). Having determined husband's actual or imputed current net income, the court shall determine husband's support obligation based upon a de novo review of husband's ability to pay support, as stipulated in the dissolution decree.
The district court also ordered wife to assume full financial responsibility for the children's medical insurance costs, finding that husband lacked the ability to contribute to the insurance. The district court did not find that wife had the ability to pay for the health insurance.
We reverse and remand the district court's order as to the children's health insurance as based on insufficient findings of husband's current net income and resources and contrary to the terms of the stipulated dissolution decree, which provides that if husband proves unable to provide group health insurance for the children, the parties shall divide the cost of insurance equally. On remand, the district court shall apportion the parties' responsibilities for the children's medical insurance based on an appropriate determination of husband's net income and in a manner consistent with the terms of the dissolution decree.