Opinion
A21-1482
09-13-2022
Patricia Mims, Respondent, v. Mark Lowe, Appellant, County of Anoka, intervenor, Respondent.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-F9-97-006349
Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Bryan, Judge; and Klaphake, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
JEFFREY M. BRYAN, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 1997, the district court first ordered appellant Mark Lowe to pay child support to respondent Patricia Mims for the parties' two minor children born in 1992 and 1994. Both children are emancipated. Respondent Anoka County is the public authority responsible for enforcement of child support obligations.
2. Because Lowe failed to remain current on his child support obligations, the district court entered judgments against him on December 21, 1999. The judgments were renewed on February 13, 2009. See Minn. Stat. §§ 548.09, subd. 1 (providing that judgments must be renewed ten years after entry), .091, subd. 3b (providing for administrative renewal of child support judgments) (2020). The judgments against Lowe were again renewed on April 4, 2018.
3. On February 16, 2021, Lowe filed a "motion to modify child support," seeking to reduce his arrearages. The motion also sought to challenge the proof of service on the renewed judgments entered in 2018. The county filed a responsive motion asking the district court to order Lowe to pay a monthly amount toward the arrears and to deny Lowe's challenge to the 2018 judgments.
4. On April 29, 2021, a hearing was held before a child support magistrate on Lowe's motion. The child support magistrate told Lowe that the district court did not have "jurisdiction or any basis to reduce the arrearage to or . . . [contest] the renewal of judgment," and that the only issue at the hearing was to determine the monthly amount that Lowe had the ability to pay toward the arrearage. Lowe told the child support magistrate that he was receiving unemployment benefits in the amount of $102 per week and an additional $300 per week in temporary federal pandemic unemployment benefits.
5. The child support magistrate issued an order on May 3, 2021, which ordered Lowe to pay $200 per month toward the child support arrearage. That same day, the court administrator served Lowe with a notice of filing of order. The notice informed Lowe of his right to bring a motion for review and stated that the deadline to do so was either May 24 or 27, 2021, depending on the type of service.
6. After the child support magistrate issued the May 3, 2021 order, Lowe sent letters to the child support magistrate multiple times. The district court returned the correspondence to Lowe and issued deficiency notices, indicating that these were ex parte communications and therefore could not be considered. Lowe filed an appeal with this court on June 22, 2021. Lowe asked the district court to stay enforcement of the May 3, 2021 order pending appeal. The child support magistrate denied Lowe's request, determining that the issues Lowe raised in his appeal exceed the scope of the May 3, 2021 order and that there was no basis to stay enforcement of the order. Lowe then asked this court to dismiss his appeal to allow him to seek further relief with the district court. This court dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2021.
7. On September 17, 2021, Lowe filed a motion for review with the district court, seeking to amend the May 3, 2021 order. In an accompanying affidavit, Lowe alleged that Mims had felony convictions of fraud, forgery, and theft dating back to the 1990s, which meant that she was ineligible to collect public assistance benefits. Lowe argued that, because of Mims's convictions, she never should have been able to collect any amount of money from him in child support obligations. Lowe asked the child support magistrate to order the return of all money that Mims had collected from him. The child support magistrate denied Lowe's motion for review in an October 25, 2021 order, determining that the September 17, 2021 motion for review was untimely. Lowe appeals.
Neither Mims nor the county filed a respondent's brief, and this court ordered the case to proceed under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03 (providing that if respondent does not file a brief, the case is to be decided on the merits).
8. When reviewing the order of a child support magistrate, we apply the same standard of review that we would apply to the order of a district court. Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn.App. 2000). We review the interpretation and application of procedural rules de novo. Vogelsberg v. Vogelsberg, 672 N.W.2d 602, 604 (Minn.App. 2003) (interpreting Minnesota General Rules of Practice governing motions for review of child support magistrate decisions).
9. A party may challenge an order of a child support magistrate by bringing a motion for review. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 376.01. To bring a motion for review, a party must complete and file the motion "within 21 days of the date the court administrator served that party with the notice form." Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 377.02. Here, the court administrator served Lowe with notice of the May 3, 2021 order on that same date, and the notice informed Lowe of the deadline to file a motion for review. Lowe did not file the motion for review until September 17, 2021, well after the 21-day deadline had passed. The child support magistrate therefore did not err by denying Lowe's motion as untimely.
10. Although we affirm the child support magistrate's order on timeliness grounds, we note two additional concerns with Lowe's motion for review. First, Lowe's motion for review of the child support magistrate's decision to the district court raised issues about Mims's previous criminal convictions, which were outside the scope of the district court's review. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 377.09, subd. 3 (stating that the review "shall be based upon the decision of the child support magistrate . . . and any exhibits and affidavits filed"). Parties may not submit new evidence on a motion for review unless the child support magistrate requests additional evidence. Id., subd. 4. Lowe's allegations about Mims's previous criminal convictions did not relate to Lowe's ability to pay arrearage, which was the only issue before the child support magistrate in the May 3, 2021 order. Second, we question whether the child support magistrate would have been able to grant Lowe's requested relief, given that the children are now emancipated. A child support obligation terminates automatically upon the emancipation of the youngest child. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 5 (2020). There is no longer any issue of an ongoing child support obligation; the only issue is the collection of Lowe's past due arrears. Lowe cites no appropriate basis for the child support magistrate to reduce Lowe's past due arrears.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The child support magistrate'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.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.