Williams Divorce and Family Law

Gerald O. Williams, Attorney

Recent Court Rulings

Minnesota Association for Justice Divorce and Family Law Columns

Spring 2008

Supreme Court

Child Custody

In re the Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood

(Filed March 27, 2008)

During the parties’ marriage dissolution in 2001 and 2002, Respondent Mother requested permission to move the parties’ minor child with Respondent to Massachusetts. The district court denied Respondent’s request, and in the dissolution decree, awarded Respondent physical custody of the child conditioned on hers and the child’s continued residence in Minnesota.

In 2006, Respondent requested permission to move the child with her to New York, or in the alternative, an evaluation and evidentiary hearing on the issue. The district court applied the custody modification statute (Minn. Stat. § 518.18) and denied Respondent’s request. Respondent sought review from the Court of Appeals, which applied the removal statute (§ 518.175, subd. 3), and reversed and remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the child’s best interests as they related to the move out of state.

On review of the Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the district court was correct to apply the custody modification statute and to deny Respondent’s request for removal. The Court ruled that the locale restriction was valid, and opted against remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings, observing that Respondent had not made a prima facie case of endangerment under the custody modification statute.

Spousal Maintenance; Child Support

Butt v. Schmidt

(Filed April 17, 2008)

The parties’ divorce decree included a stipulated award of spousal maintenance and a Karon waiver that divested the court of future jurisdiction over the maintenance issue. When Appellant Father sought, and obtained, appellate relief from the Court of Appeals, the ruling of the Court of Appeals included instructions on remand to exercise discretion regarding any adjustments to maintenance that equity would require. The Supreme Court reversed the error of the Court of Appeals in granting the district court jurisdiction over maintenance that had been divested by the parties’ Karon waiver.

In ruling on the issue of Respondent Mother’s lack of employment, and whether to impute income to Respondent, the Supreme Court observed that the applicable statute does not clearly assign the burden of proof as to voluntary unemployment or underemployment. The Supreme Court ruled that Respondent did have the burden of proof, had not provided a basis for being relieved of the obligation to earn income, and that therefore the district court had abused its discretion in refraining from imputing income to Respondent.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals regarding the issue of retroactivity, agreeing that Appellant was not entitled to retroactive relief, both because Appellant had waived consideration of the issue by failing to raise it during the district court proceedings, and also because the applicable statute provided for retroactivity only in orders for modified support, and not in this instance of an original, permanent support order.

Court of Appeals

Spousal Maintenance

In re the Matter of Lee v. Lee

(Filed March 25, 2008)

Twenty-two years after the parties’ divorce, Appellant Husband was ordered to pay modified spousal maintenance based in part on pension income that he was awarded in the original divorce decree. The marital share of Appellant’s pension had been equally divided between the parties in the decree. The district court had properly excluded from Appellant’s available income (for spousal maintenance purposes) pension income equal to what Respondent received as income from Appellant’s pension. But since the district court excluded only Appellant’s pension benefits equal to Respondent’s benefits from Appellant’s pension, the district court had thereby failed to properly exclude all of Appellant’s marital and premarital pension interests from Appellant’s “available” income for maintenance purposes.

Appellant also argued that the district court had improperly included in his available income benefits attributable to Appellant’s post-marital pension accumulation. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed on that issue, because case precedent holds that post-marital pension accumulation constitutes income available for payment of spousal maintenance.

The Court of Appeals ordered that Appellant’s maintenance obligation be reduced to zero, based upon Appellant lacking any ability to pay spousal maintenance due to his reasonable living expenses being in excess of his available income. Finally, the Court of Appeals modified the effective date for the modified maintenance order because the district court’s commencement date had no basis in the record.

Appellate Procedure

In re the Marriage of Clifford v. Bundy

(Filed April 8, 2008)

After the parties’ divorce decree was entered, Appellant Wife requested amended findings. However, Appellant presented the motion for amended findings directly to the assigned judge, instead of filing the motion with the court administrator. Consequently, the motion for amended findings did not effectively extend the time for any appeal from the divorce decree.

The Court of Appeals observed that the appeal sought review of both the divorce decree and the district court’s decision on the motion for amended findings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, since it was untimely as to the deadline to appeal from the divorce decree, and since the motion for amended findings was also technically untimely.