From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Travis v. Travis

Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Mar 11, 2022
No. A21-1054 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2022)

Opinion

A21-1054

03-11-2022

In re the Marriage of: Richard Norris Travis, petitioner, Appellant, v. Monica Laurie Travis, Respondent.


Anoka County District Court File No. 02-FA-16-1728

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge.

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

ORDER OPINION

Matthew E. Johnson, Judge

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:

1. Richard Norris Travis moved to modify his spousal-maintenance obligation to Monica Laurie Travis. The district court denied the motion. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.

2. Richard and Monica were married in 1990, and their marriage was dissolved in 2017. The dissolution decree reflects the parties' agreement concerning the issue of spousal maintenance. Specifically, the parties agreed that Richard's gross monthly income was $11,826 (or $141,912 per year) and that Monica, who then was unemployed, was capable of earning $24,000 per year. The parties agreed that Richard would pay Monica $3,400 per month in permanent spousal maintenance (with cost-of-living adjustments) and one-third of any annual bonus he might receive. The district court also ordered Richard to secure his spousal-maintenance obligation with a $550,000 life-insurance policy.

3. In December 2019, Monica found a new job, in which she eared a gross annual income of $46,777. In May 2021, Richard moved for an order (1) reducing his spousal-maintenance obligation; (2) eliminating his obligation to pay Monica one-third of any annual bonus; and (3) modifying the requirement that he secure his spousal-maintenance obligation with life insurance. Monica requested that the district court deny Richard's motion and grant her certain other relief.

4. In July 2021, the district court fled a 14-page order in which it denied Richard's motion. The district court fund that Richard's gross income is $10,400 per month and that Monica's gross income, including the then-current amount of $3,666 in spousal maintenance, is $7,718 per month. The district court also fund that Richard's reasonable monthly expenses are $6,759 and that Monica's reasonable monthly expenses are $6,190. Accordingly, the district court found that the existing spousal-maintenance award causes a monthly deficit of $26 fr Richard and a monthly surplus of $1,528 fr Monica. The district court fund that Monica's income had substantially increased but that Richard had not shown that the substantial increase makes the existing spousal-maintenance award unreasonable and unfair.

5. Richard appeals. He makes two arguments. We begin by considering his argument that the district court erred by not considering his and Monica's after-tax incomes (as opposed to their pre-tax incomes) when ruling on his motion to modify spousal maintenance. In response, Monica concedes that the district court erred by not considering each party's income-tax liabilities. We agree that the district court erred. In determining the need fr and, if appropriate, the amount of spousal maintenance, a district court must consider each spouse's after-tax income if there is evidence in the record of their anticipated income-tax liabilities and if the difference between each party's pre-tax income and after-tax income may be determinative of the need fr or amount of spousal maintenance. Schmidt v. Schmidt, 964 N.W.2d 221, 226-29 (Minn.App. 2021). Likewise, a district court also must consider after-tax income if one spouse moves to modify a spousal-maintenance award based on either a party's substantially increased or decreased income or a party's substantially increased or decreased need fr spousal maintenance. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a)(1), (2) (2020).

6. In this case, both parties introduced detailed evidence of their anticipated income-tax liabilities, including amounts owed under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Specifically, the parties' evidence showed that Richard's income-tax liabilities are between $2,436 and $2,443 per month and that Monica's income-tax liabilities are between $1,292 and $1,689 per month. The parties' evidence makes clear that income-tax liabilities have a significant impact on each party's monthly budget and could be the difference between a surplus or a deficit. See Schmidt, 964 N.W.2d at 226-29. But the district court did not make any findings of the parties' income-tax liabilities or their after-tax incomes, i.e., the amounts of money available to them to pay their respective reasonable monthly expenses.

7. Richard's other argument is that the district court erred by determining that the substantial increase in Monica's income did not make the existing spousal-maintenance award unreasonable and unfair. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a). In response, Monica again concedes that the district court erred. She also states that "this matter will need to be remanded for the trial court to consider the parties' net incomes, and then, determine whether Mr. Travis met his high burden of proving that the existing award is unreasonable and unfair." We agree that a remand is appropriate. The determination of whether an existing spousal-maintenance award is unreasonable and unfair necessarily depends on findings of the parties' respective incomes and expenses. In light of Schmidt, the district court must make findings of the parties' respective after-tax incomes and then determine, in the first instance, whether the existing spousal-maintenance award is unreasonable and unfair.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The district court's order is reversed and remanded fr further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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.


Summaries of

Travis v. Travis

Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Mar 11, 2022
No. A21-1054 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2022)
Case details for

Travis v. Travis

Case Details

Full title:In re the Marriage of: Richard Norris Travis, petitioner, Appellant, v…

Court:Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Date published: Mar 11, 2022

Citations

No. A21-1054 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2022)