Williams Divorce and Family Law
Recent Court Rulings
Minnesota Association for Justice Divorce and Family Law Columns
Fall 2005
Court of Appeals
Child Support
County of Anoka ex rel Hassan v. Roba
(Filed November 30, 2004)
The district court ordered Appellant Mother to pay guideline child support for two minor children residing with Appellant’s adult son. The child support order of $359.97 per month was based upon the statutory child support guidelines as applied to her net monthly income of $1,199, without deviation. Appellant had provided the court with her monthly budget of $1,025, which left substantially less than the guideline amount for payment of child support.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that where a child support obligor submits evidence to show that he or she lacks the ability to pay, the fact finder must make findings to show that it has considered whether deviation is necessary. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for additional findings on Appellant’s ability to pay and on whether deviating from the guidelines is warranted.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that Appellant should be given an opportunity to challenge her duty to support under Minn. Stat. § 256.87. This is a child support action brought by the county for reimbursement of public assistance. The minor children subject to the action were 18 and 17 when Respondent County initiated the action. The public assistance program, Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), provides benefits to children through age 18 or, if a full-time student at a secondary school, through age 19. The child support order in this matter continues until the children are 18 or, if in secondary school, through age 20. The Court of Appeals observed that the child support magistrate may not have the authority to continue child support past the point when MFIP benefits are paid to Appellant’s adult son for the children.
On remand, the Court of Appeals directed the court to address any legitimate challenge by Appellant to the adult son’s receipt of assistance for the children in accord with the children’s current age and school status.
Antenuptial Agreements
In Re Siewert v. Siewert
(Filed February 8, 2005)
The parties divorced in September 2003, having been married in 1982 and having signed an antenuptial agreement just before the marriage. The antenuptial agreement was signed and notarized by the attorney who drafted the agreement, and no other witnesses.
The divorce proceeding began in April 2001. The parties disputed the validity of the antenuptial agreement and, in November 2002, the district court ruled that the antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. The case went to trial, and the court issued the 2003 divorce decree, as well as an amended decree in March 2004, in accordance with regard for the terms of the antenuptial agreement.
Appellant Husband appealed from the district court’s interpretation and application of the antenuptial agreement. Respondent Wife appealed from the ruling that the antenuptial agreement was valid, arguing that the absence of two witnesses, required by statute, rendered the agreement invalid.
Appellant asserted that Respondent’s validity challenge was not preserved for appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled that the challenge was indeed preserved because the November 2002 determination that the antenuptial agreement was valid was a non-appealable order, and the Respondent’s notice of review properly rested on the original and amended decrees.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that the antenuptial agreement was invalid and unenforceable for lack of the required two witnesses. The Court of Appeals asserted that cases cited by Appellant, in which antenuptial agreements were held valid even without two witnesses, were distinguishable. In this instance unlike the cited cases, the Court of Appeals ruled, there was no explanation or basis to excuse the absence of two witnesses.