Opinion
No. C1-02-2090.
Filed June 10, 2003.
Appeal from the Renville County District Court, File No. FX99140.
David Jon Torgelson, Renville County Attorney, (for petitioner Renville County)
Ronald R. Frauenshuh, Jr., (for appellant)
Eric Gene Hanson, (pro se respondent)
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Anderson, 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 challenges the district court's denial of petitioner's petition to modify respondent's child-support obligation. Because we conclude that there was a substantial increase in respondent's income rendering the support order unreasonable and unfair, we affirm in part as modified and reverse in part.
FACTS
In 1999, appellant Denise Jo Weidner and respondent Eric Gene Hanson entered into a marital-termination agreement (MTA). The district court accepted the agreement and ordered the parties' marriage terminated in July 1999. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties had joint legal custody of the parties' three children. Appellant was granted physical custody of two children, and respondent was granted physical custody of one child. The MTA set respondent's child-support obligation at $500 per month. In April 2001, this figure was increased to $533, due to a cost-of-living adjustment.
In November 2001, Renville County moved for modification of respondent's child-support obligation. The county presented an affidavit of a child-support officer, which stated that appellant was unemployed and was in receipt of Medical Assistance. Furthermore, the affidavit stated that respondent's net income had increased from $2,000 per month to $2,949 per month, and provided an estimated guideline support amount of $688 per month.
The district court heard arguments in December 2001. It denied the county's motion because the county had failed to produce any evidence regarding appellant's income. Respondent's support obligation remained $533 per month.
An appeal of the district court's order denying modification was filed with this court in March 2002. This court determined that the county's proposed support payment of $688 was erroneous on its face, because it was determined for three noncustodial children rather than two. The case was remanded to the district court to recalculate, and reconsider modifying, respondent's child support obligation.
On remand, the district court reiterated that appellant had not established that she was unemployed or receiving public assistance and imputed to her a net monthly income of $1,004.25. After recalculating respondent's presumptive child-support obligation and applying appellant's imputed income, the district court arrived at a child-support obligation of $633.70 for respondent. However the district court declined to modify support, stating that the difference between the new figure and that in "the previous order" did not qualify as a presumed substantial change in circumstances under Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(b) (2002). This appeal follows.
$884.70 (respondent's support obligation for two children), minus $251 (appellant's obligation for one child), equals $633.70.
DECISION
Appellant contends that the district court erred by imputing income to her despite clear evidence that she was unemployed and receiving public assistance. A district court's determination of income for child-support purposes is a question of fact that this court will not set aside unless it has no reasonable basis in fact and is clearly erroneous. State ex rel. Rimolde v. Tinker, 601 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Minn.App. 1999). In determining if findings of fact are clearly erroneous, we view the record in the light most favorable to the district court's findings. Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn.App. 2000). District courts, held to the same standard as child-support magistrates, enjoy broad discretion in imputing income. See Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 353-54 (Minn. 2002) (child support magistrate has broad discretion in imputing or not imputing income); Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn.App. 2000) (district court decisions outside expedited child-support process are held to same standard as decisions of child-support magistrate). Thus, we review this matter for an abuse of discretion. See Murphy v. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d 77, 82-83 (Minn.App. 1998) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard of review to child support order based on imputed income).
When calculating child support, the district court may impute income to an obligor upon finding that the party is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (2002). It is presumed that an obligor is not voluntarily unemployed or underemployed if he or she is receiving public assistance under section 256.741 of the Minnesota Statutes. Id. subd. 5b(e).
If there is insufficient evidence on which to rely in determining income or to impute income, the court may calculate income based on full-time employment of 40 hours per week at 150% of the state or federal minimum wage, whichever is higher. Id. Here, after finding that the county had not submitted sufficient evidence that appellant was involuntarily unemployed, the district court utilized the formula as set out in section 518.551, subdivision 5b(e) and arrived at an imputed net monthly income of $1,004.25. After multiplying this amount by the statutory percentage for one noncustodial child (25%), and accounting for taxes, the district court set appellant's support obligation at $251.06 (the district court rounded down to $251). This amount was subtracted from the amount owed by respondent according to the guidelines, $884.70, to set respondent's presumed support obligation at $633.70.
Based on the record before this court, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that insufficient evidence as to appellant's income or receipt of public assistance was submitted. Therefore, the district court did not err by imputing income in conformity with the statute. We affirm the district court's findings as to the parties' respective incomes and presumptive support obligations.
The district court, however, refused to modify respondent's obligation from $533 per month to $633.70 per month, stating that the difference did not constitute a statutory presumed substantial change in circumstances. See Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(b) (2002) (statute establishes presumed substantial change of circumstances when application of guidelines to current circumstances results in difference of at least 20% and $50.00 from current support order). We note that section 518.64, subdivision 2(b), merely provides for a presumption that, if established, the movant proceeds with in her favor, but is not determinative. The district court's reliance on appellant's failure to establish this presumption alone was an abuse of discretion.
When deciding whether or not to modify child support, the district court must determine if a substantial change in circumstances has occurred that makes the original award unreasonable and unfair. Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (2002); Hecker v. Hecker, 568 N.W.2d 705, 709 (Minn. 1997) (noting dual burden on movant to show substantial change and that change renders original award unreasonable and unfair). Because the district court ended its inquiry by concluding that appellant did not establish section 518.64, subdivision 2(b)'s substantial-change-incircumstances presumption in her favor, without proceeding to find that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred to make the current order unreasonable and unfair, we reverse the district court's decision not to modify respondent's child-support obligation.
Because we conclude that respondent's 47% increase in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances, using the figures as found by the district court, we modify the existing support obligation to conform to the state child-support guidelines. Accordingly, respondent's monthly support obligation is set at $633.70.