 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Boeck6/18/2002
The parties' marriage was dissolved in 1990. In 2000, the parties filed cross-motions with the district court. In its February 8, 2001 order, the district court addressed three issues: (1) child-support modification; (2) spousal-maintenance modification; and (3) a finding of constructive civil contempt against appellant-father for failing to provide tax returns to respondent-mother.
Father moved to amend the district court's February 8, 2001 order. The district court vacated the contempt order because it had failed to hold an evidentiary hearing. The district court also amended other findings based on father's motion, but left in place the amended child-support and maintenance awards. Father appeals from both the original February 8 order and the district court's amended order. We affirm the district court's child-support modification and its interpretation of an earlier order that addressed father's disclosure of his tax records. But because we conclude that the district court, in addressing spousal maintenance, failed to make adequate findings to support its conclusion regarding mother's needs, we remand for additional findings.
FACTS
The parties were married in 1973. The parties have three children. The parties' marriage was dissolved in May 1990.
In 2000, the parties filed several motions, and the district court issued a judgment based on these motions on February 8, 2001. The district court recognized that the father's child-support obligation at the time of the hearing was $1,894 per month and that spousal maintenance was $2,007 per month, plus an additional lump-sum payment each year.
The district court concluded that an increase in child support was necessary because father's increased income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances, making the current support unreasonable or unfair. Because father's income exceeds the highest income on the guidelines grid, his support was calculated using the statutory "cap" pursuant to Minn. Stat. ยง 518. 551, subd. 5(k) (2000). Based on the maximum net monthly income considered by the guidelines of $6,280.00, the district court set child support for the three children at $2,198.00 ($6,280 x 35% [guidelines percentage for three children at maximum net monthly income] = $2,198). The district court also found that father was partially paying for the son's schooling and treatment programs.
The district court then found that it would be reasonable to reduce father's child-support obligation because of father's payment of son's tuition and medical expenses. But the district court recognized that the parties would not be able to work out these arrangements themselves, so the district court simply reduced appellant's guideline support by $150 per month to partially compensate father for his additional contributions to his son's expenses.
The district court found that the lump-sum payment system used for maintenance in this case was not working and that the best solution was to eliminate the lump-sum payment and to establish a $6,000-per-month maintenance payment.
Finally, the district court found that father was not following a court order that mandated documentation of his income. The court found that father was in constructive civil contempt and sentenced father to 90 days in jail. The district court stayed the sentence so long as father complied with the original order and produced documentation for his 1991-96 income.
Father moved the district court to amend its findings and vacate the contempt order. In its August 2, 2001 order, the district court vacated its contempt order because no evidentiary hearing was held. But the district court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|