 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kowalzyk v. Bornhorst10/25/2005
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for termination of spousal maintenance, arguing that his early retirement constituted a substantial change in circumstances requiring that spousal maintenance be terminated, and that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to recover a cash bond previously posted to secure outstanding medical expense and health insurance obligations. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for termination of spousal maintenance and refusing the request for recovery of the cash bond, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant William Charles Bornhorst and respondent Diane Maria Kowalzyk's marriage was dissolved by judgment and decree on February 9, 2001, pursuant to stipulations made by the parties in a marital termination agreement. The judgment awarded respondent permanent spousal maintenance "open to modification, upon proper motion based upon a substantial change in circumstances rendering the original award unreasonable and unfair." The judgment also entitled respondent to continuing coverage under appellant's medical and dental plans without interference until no longer available by law, and provided that respondent "shall have notice of any changes and the absolute right to extend or continue any dependent coverage available to her through such plans." In regard to the parties' daughter, the judgment stated that appellant "plans to maintain health and dental insurance for the adult children who are eligible for coverage under his plans as students so long as the coverage remains available to him."
In February 2001, appellant told his insurance provider to terminate family health insurance coverage for respondent and their daughter without informing the appropriate parties. Respondent moved to compel appellant to pay the COBRA premiums required to reinstate health and dental insurance, which was granted by the district court. When appellant failed to comply with this order, respondent sought and the district court granted an order requiring appellant to post a $10,000 cash bond to secure appellant's insurance obligations set forth in the order. Appellant failed to meet the deadline in the order for posting the bond. Subsequently, the district court found him in constructive contempt of its order and the judgment. In its September 3, 2002 order, the district court also found that respondent and the parties' daughter had incurred medical bills totaling over $15,000 as a result of the lapse in health insurance. Appellant posted the required bond on October 2, 2002.
On June 30, 2002, appellant retired early from General Mills, Inc. with additional pay and benefits set forth in a severance package that ended one year later. Appellant then brought a motion to terminate his spousal maintenance obligation, arguing that his early retirement constituted a substantial change in circumstances; and seeking the return of the $10,000 cash bond. In its findings and order dated February 24, 2004 (February order), the district court concluded that appellant had "not carried his burden of making a prima facie case showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances which would justify modification of spousal maintenance," and, therefore, denied the motion. The district court also found the presence of various Richards factors, suggesting that the district court believed appellant's early retirement to be in bad faith. In re Marriage of Richards, 472 N.W.2d 162, 164-65 (Minn. App. 1991). Specifically, the district court found that appellant had "no physical or mental disabilities which prevent him from working," was "several years away from the traditional retirement age of
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.
|
|