Opinion
A23-1126
02-27-2024
State of Minnesota, County of St Louis, Petitioner, Joshua D Price, Appellant, v. Jennie Bissell, Respondent.
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-FA-21-64
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Francis J. Connolly, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Joshua Price and respondent Jennie Bissell were married in 2008 and are the parents of a child born in 2012.
2. In 2019, while appellant, on active duty in the Coast Guard, was deployed to Antarctica and respondent and the child were living in the State of Washington, respondent decided to relocate with the child to Minnesota.
3. The parties' marriage was dissolved in a Washington state court in 2020. Respondent was named custodian of the child; appellant was given parenting time during school breaks and for eight weeks during the summer. Based on his Coast Guard monthly income of $8,459, appellant was ordered to pay respondent about $1,217 in monthly child support.
4. After appellant unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a transfer to Minnesota so he could be close to the parties' child, he retired from the Coast Guard. His retirement pay was $3,304 monthly, and he moved to Tennessee. St. Louis County, Minnesota, (the county), moved to modify child support.
5. Both the statute that was effective when appellant's support obligation was originally set and the current version of that statute state that, "If a parent is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed or employed on a less than full-time basis, . . . child support must be calculated based on a determination of potential income." Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1 (2020) (emphasis added).
6. In 2021, a child support magistrate (CSM) determined that (a) respondent was voluntarily unemployed and subject to an imputed monthly income of $1,819; (b) appellant's monthly income for child support purposes was $3,810; and (c) appellant's monthly child-support obligation was $589.
7. In 2022, the county again moved to modify child support, and a CSM determined that (a) appellant's monthly income was his retirement pay of $3,304; (b) respondent's monthly income included her $730 benefit from appellant's retirement benefit and was $3,319, and (c) appellant's child support obligation was $357.
8. Respondent challenged the CSM's order, and the district court remanded for a CSM to determine whether appellant was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and should have income imputed to him.
9. Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 3 (2022), provides that a parent is not considered voluntarily unemployed or underemployed if the parent can show that "the unemployment . . . represents a bona fide career change that outweighs the adverse effect of that parent's diminished income on the child."
10. The CSM determined that appellant was not voluntarily unemployed because his Coast Guard retirement was a bona fide career change, and respondent challenged that determination in this court.
11. Price v. Bissell, No. A22-1097, 2023 WL 3047974 (Minn.App. Apr. 24, 2023), reversed the CSM on the ground that appellant's retirement did not excuse him from the obligation to obtain new employment and remanded for the CSM to consider whether income should be imputed to appellant. Appellant did not petition for review of that decision.
12. On remand, the CSM (a) noted that this court's decision was binding; (b) imputed monthly earned income of $2,858 to appellant, giving him a gross monthly income of $6,162; (c) imputed monthly earned income of $2,589 to respondent, giving her a gross monthly income of $3,319; and (d) determined that appellant's monthly child support obligation is $657.
13. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(b)(1) (2022), provides that the terms of an existing child support order are rebuttably presumed to be unreasonable and unfair if the current circumstances result in an order that is at least 20% and $75 higher or lower than the existing order.
14. The CSM concluded that, because $657 is neither 20% nor $75 higher or lower than the 2021 child support obligation of $589, there has not been a substantial change in circumstances making that obligation unfair, and reinstated that obligation.
15. Appellant challenges the CSM's order, asking this court to reverse Price, its nonprecedential previous decision, and conclude that appellant is not voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and is not subject to imputed income.
16. Appellant's argument that we now alter our prior decision is an argument that this court should rehear the relevant portion of that appeal. The rules preclude us from doing so. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 140.01 (stating that "[n]o petition for rehearing shall be allowed in the Court of Appeals").
17. Moreover, "[n]onprecedential opinions . . . are not binding authority except as law of the case." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c). Law of the case "is a discretionary doctrine developed by the appellate courts to effectuate the finality of appellate decisions. It ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings." Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740, 744 n.1 (Minn. 1994) (citations omitted).
18. Thus, this court's decision in Price that appellant is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 is law of the case and cannot be altered by another decision of this court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The CSM'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.