 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reed v. Reed11/22/2005
Appellant Joel Reed moved to reduce or terminate his maintenance obligation to respondent Daria Reed, and the district court denied the motion. Because appellant has not shown that the court made clearly erroneous findings of fact or otherwise abused its discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant's challenge to his maintenance obligation began with a 2004 motion, and respondent moved in return for an award of attorney fees. Following a discovery dispute regarding respondent's 2002 and 2003 income tax returns, the district court allowed respondent to submit the returns after the hearing. The court then denied appellant's motion, holding that although respondent's net monthly income had increased from $1,405 to $1,655, the increase did not show that appellant's existing maintenance obligation was unreasonable or unfair. The court also denied respondent's motion for fees. The court subsequently denied appellant's request for amended findings, and on this occasion the court awarded respondent $500 for part of her fees incurred in the post-hearing proceedings. Appellant disputes denial of his request for relief from maintenance, and respondent disputes the court's denial of her initial motion for fees.
DECISION
1.
The district court has discretion to decide whether to modify a maintenance award based upon a showing of substantially changed circumstances rendering the existing obligation unreasonable and unfair. Minn. Stat. ยง 518.64, subd. 2 (2004); Claybaugh v. Claybaugh, 312 N.W.2d 447, 449 (Minn. 1981). The court is to exercise its discretion "carefully" when asked to modify a stipulated maintenance award. Id. Maintenance-related findings of fact are not to be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. McCulloch v. McCulloch, 435 N.W.2d 564, 566 (Minn. App. 1989).
The court's finding of respondent's current net monthly income assumes that she works 24 hours per week. Noting that she had worked more that 24 hours per week at times, appellant argues that that finding understates respondent's income. But the district court found that respondent's medical condition left her "unable" to continue working the schedule she previously tried to maintain. This finding is not clearly erroneous on this record and is consistent with the portion of the stipulated divorce judgment stating that respondent's medical condition made it "doubtful" she would be able to return to her career "on more than a part-time basis." The record also permits, without clear error, the district court's refusal to find respondent's income to be the amount appellant claims she stated on a financial aid form for the parties' son.
Appellant argues that respondent's current $1,655 "net monthly income from employment" must be contrasted with earned income of $943 stated in the divorce judgment, $712 less than her current earnings. But in addition to income from employment, the divorce judgment found that respondent received workers' compensation benefits, making her then-total net monthly income $1,405. Respondent no longer receives the compensations payments.
Appellant argues that the past compensation payments should be overlooked because the district court, when calculating respondent's current income, disregarded her receipt of income from what he alleges is an investment account. Respondent argues that the account may be a retirement account. Because evidence on the nature of the account was not presented to and considered by the district court, we do not address this aspect of appellant's argument. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). Moreover, even if the record permitted a finding that respondent's income increase is more th
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|