Minnesota Association for Justice Divorce and Family Law Columns

• 2005: Winter |Spring |Summer |Fall
• 2006: Winter |Spring | Summer | Fall
• 2007: Winter | Spring | Summer | Fall
• 2008: Winter | Spring

Winter 2008

Court of Appeals

Child Support

In re the Matter of Frank-Bretwisch v. Ryan

(Filed December 4, 2007)

Respondent Mother was paying child support in accord with a 2005 stipulated court order in which the parties had agreed to deviate downwards from the child support guidelines. When Appellant Father sought to increase child support thereafter, claiming that Respondent had misrepresented her income, the child support magistrate denied the request, ruling that Respondent had not misrepresented her income, and that Appellant appeared to simply regret the deal he had reached with Respondent in 2005. On review, the district court agreed with the child support magistrate that Appellant, who was represented by counsel at the time of the stipulation, was not placed at undue disadvantage. Both the child support magistrate and the district court judge expressed concern, however, that the sub-guideline child support was not consistent with the child’s best interests.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the application of the guidelines to current facts invoked the statutory presumption that there was a change of circumstances, which presumption it was Respondent’s burden to overcome. Respondent’s burden was further complicated by the fact that the original support order that deviated from the support guidelines did not contain proper, specific findings to support, and explain, the deviation. Ultimately, the court’s determination could not properly rest on a compromise reached by the parties without findings pertaining to the child’s interests. The matter was subject to remand because the orders denying Appellant’s motion to modify support failed to address whether this significantly sub-guideline obligation was in the child’s best interests.

Quasi-Judicial Immunity

Peterka v. Dennis

(Filed January 29, 2008)

Appellant Wife sued Respondent Accountant for malpractice connected to Respondent’s work as a neutral financial expert in Appellant’s and her husband’s marriage dissolution. The district court granted Respondent summary judgment, ruling that Respondent was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Minnesota law provides quasi-judicial immunity to anyone exercising authority (by law or by agreement of the parties) of an essentially judicial nature.

The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that while Respondent may have been a court-appointed neutral, he was not appointed to perform a judicial function, and therefore is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Additionally, the Court of Appeals ruled that public policy does not compel immunity for an accountant performing an appraisal, since accountants are subject to standards of care, and liability arises only in instances of substandard performance.