Opinion
A22-0360
01-19-2023
In re the Marriage of: Ashley Burgess, petitioner, Respondent, v. Kevin Lund, Appellant.
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-FA-19-1009
Considered and decided by Gaitas, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Elise L. Larson Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In August 2020, the district court entered a stipulated judgment dissolving the marriage of appellant Kevin Lund (father) and respondent Ashley Burgess (mother). The district court awarded mother sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties' two minor children. The district court awarded father "reasonable parenting time, noting that [the party's agreement was] a deviation from statute and [provided father with] less than 25% parenting time."
2. In September 2021, father filed a motion in district court requesting, in relevant part, an increase in parenting time as described in Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 5 (2020). Mother filed a cross-motion requesting, in relevant part, that the district court enforce the stipulated judgment by ordering father to pay child support and spousal maintenance using automatic deposit.
3. The district court held a motion hearing in November 2021. The district court addressed mother's cross-motion orally, deciding, in relevant part, that father must set up automatic deposit for child-support and spousal-maintenance payments. The district court took father's motion under advisement.
4. In January 2022, the district court filed an order denying father's motion. To do so, the district court applied Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (2020), the statutory framework for changes in custody rather than parenting time.
5. In response to mother's letter request that the district court issue an order reflecting its oral decisions at the November 2021 hearing, the district court filed an order addendum in February 2022. The district court ordered father to pay child support and spousal maintenance via automatic deposit on the first of every month.
6. Father appeals both orders.
7. Regarding the January 2022 order, mother concedes that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard. Whereas Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) governs custody modifications, father requested an increase in parenting time as described in Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 5 ("'Parenting time' means the time a parent spends with a child regardless of the custodial designation regarding the child."). Generally, the standard for modifying parenting time requires the movant to show only that the proposed modification is in the child's best interests, provided the request would not change the child's primary residence. Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5(b); Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn.App. 2014) (recognizing the district court's "broad discretion to decide parenting-time questions"). Because the district court erred when it applied the incorrect legal standard, we reverse and remand with instructions for the district court to apply Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5. Dahl v. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d 118, 124 (Minn.App. 2009).
8. Father argues that we should order the district court to reopen the record on remand. Mother responds that reopening the record is unnecessary. We leave it to the district court's discretion whether to reopen the record. See Suleski, 855 N.W.2d at 340.
9. Regarding the February 2022 order addendum, father argues the district court lacked legal authority to require him to use automatic deposit to pay child support and spousal maintenance. But father fails to consider the relevant legal precedent. Hunley v. Hunley, 757 N.W.2d 898, 901 (Minn.App. 2008) ("In family law decisions . . . the judiciary is guided by equitable principles in determining the parties' rights and liabilities .... Thus, district courts can grant equitable relief as the facts in each particular case and the ends of justice may require." (quotations and citation omitted)). District courts exercise broad discretion on support modifications, Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 344 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn.App. 1984), thus, the applicable inquiry is whether the law prevents the district court from requiring father to use automatic deposit.
10. Father has not cited any statute, and we are aware of none, that would limit the district court's authority to order father to use automatic deposit to enforce the support order. And we have consistently upheld a district court's wide latitude in enforcing support orders. Hunley, 757 N.W.2d at 900 (upholding requirement of obligor to hold lifeinsurance policy as security); Gabrielson v. Gabrielson, 363 N.W.2d 814, 817-18 (Minn.App. 1985) (affirming district court's decision to assure the availability of child-support funds by establishing a trust and requiring obligor to deposit a portion of land sale proceeds); Resch v. Resch, 381 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn.App. 1986) (similar); see also Minn. Stat. § 518A.71 (2022) (addressing a district court's authority to require security for support obligations).
11. We discern no error in the district court's February 2022 order addendum enforcing the child-support and spousal-maintenance payments by requiring father to use "automatic deposit transfer . . . on the first of every month." Therefore, we affirm the February 2022 order addendum.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's January 2021 order is reversed and remanded for the district court to apply Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5. On remand, the district court has discretion regarding whether to reopen the record.
2. The district court's February 2022 order addendum is affirmed.
3. 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.