IN COURT OF APPEALS
Re the Marriage of Bradley Alan Fitzgerald,
Laurie Anne Fitzgerald,
June 19, 2001
Affirmed as modified.
G. Barry Anderson, Judge
County District Court
File No. DC243355
G. Sauter, Jason P. Rietz, Douglas G. Sauter & Associates, P.A., 199 Coon
Rapids Boulevard, Suite 108, Coon Rapids, MN
55433 (for appellant)
Larry Katz, Susan A. Daudelin, Katz & Manka, Ltd., 4150 U.S. Bank Place, 601
Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402
and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, G. Barry Anderson, Judge and Foley,
net income limit established in the child support guidelines, codified at Minn.
Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5 (2000), does not apply to child-care costs calculated
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(ii) (E) (2000).
G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s dissolution judgment, arguing that the district court erred by (1) miscalculating respondent’s income, thereby understating his child-care contribution; (2) miscalculating appellant’s nonmarital share of her retirement plans; and by (3) concluding that appellant had not proven a nonmarital interest in the homestead and her income tax refunds. We hold that the district court’s findings concerning the property were not clearly erroneous and that they sustain the property division. But because the district court miscalculated respondent’s child-care obligation, we affirm the judgment as modified.
Laurie Anne Fitzgerald and respondent Bradley Alan Fitzgerald were married April
1, 1989. The parties have two
children, a daughter, age ten, and a son, age three.
Custody is not disputed. Appellant
also has an emancipated daughter from her first marriage.
Both appellant and respondent reside in Princeton, Minnesota.
Respondent is employed as a territory representative for a corporate
automobile leasing company and, based on 1999 income, earns approximately
$123,500 per year. Appellant is an
air traffic controller employed by Princeton Automated Flight Service; she earns
approximately $61,478 per year.
The district court calculated respondent’s net income and, in doing so,
deducted expenses other than those listed within Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd.
5(b) (2000). By judgment dated
August 8, 2000, the district court ordered respondent to pay monthly child
support of $1,780 and monthly child-care expenses of $146.64. The district court also equally divided the parties’
property; each party received property worth $112,549.50. The property included the parties’ homestead, funds from
appellant’s employer-sponsored retirement plans, and income tax refunds
appellant received for tax years 1998 and 1999. Neither party moved for amended findings of fact, amended
conclusions of law, or a new trial.
I. Did the district court err by miscalculating respondent’s net income, thereby understating his child-care obligation?
II. Did the district court err by determining the homestead and income tax refunds to be marital property, and by miscalculating appellant’s nonmarital interests in her employer-sponsored retirement plans?
On appeal from judgment
where, as here, there has been no motion for new trial, the only questions for
review are whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such
findings sustain the conclusions of law and judgment.
Erickson v. Erickson, 434 N.W.2d 284, 286 (Minn. App. 1989).
Appellant first argues that the district court clearly erred
by finding respondent’s net monthly income to be $5,980, and further erred by
using that net income as a basis for calculating respondent’s child-care
contribution. The district court is
required to allocate the costs of child care to each parent in proportion to
each parent’s net income after the transfer of child support and spousal
maintenance, unless the allocation would be substantially unfair to either
parent. Minn. Stat. § 518.551,
subd. 5(b)(ii)(E) (2000). Minn.
Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) defines an obligor’s net income as total monthly
income minus deductions. Id. Permitted
deductions include: (1) federal and state income taxes; (2) social security and
reasonable pension deductions; (3) union dues; (4) individual, group, or
dependent health insurance coverage costs or actual medical expenses; and (5) a
current child support or maintenance order.
The district court determined respondent’s net monthly income to be
$5,980. In arriving at that figure,
the district court subtracted expenses from respondent’s gross monthly income,
including (1) savings bonds ($240); (2) a charitable contribution ($24); (3)
life insurance ($362.10); (4) company car expense ($1,200); (5) long-term
disability insurance ($396.54); and (6) a discount employee stock purchase plan
do not believe that these deductions fit within the statutory categories.
The calculation of net income for support purposes allows a reasonable
pension deduction. Minn. Stat. §
518.551, subd. 5(b). Case law has
interpreted this statutory statement to allow deductions for reasonable,
non-pension retirement contributions. See,
e.g., State ex rel. Rimolde v. Tinker, 601 N.W.2d 468, 471 (Minn. App. 1999)
(401K deduction); Mueller v. Mueller, 419 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Minn. App. 1988) (IRA
deduction). There is no evidence
that the savings bonds or stock purchase plan were part of a retirement plan.
Life and long-term disability insurance are not health insurance coverage
costs. The charitable donations and
company car expense bear no relation to any of the statutory categories.
Because these deducted expenses do not fit within the statutory
categories, the district court erroneously understated both respondent’s net
monthly income and his child-care contribution.
Child-care costs are computed by the formula established by Minn. Stat.
§ 518.551, subd. 5(b)(ii)(E) (2000).
Using annual child-care costs of $3,744, respondent’s net monthly
income of $4,200 (after subtracting his $1,780 child-support obligation), and
appellant’s net monthly income of $4,740, the district court calculated
respondent’s child-care contribution to be $146.64.
Had the district court not erroneously subtracted the nondeductible
expenses from respondent’s gross income, his actual net income, after
subtracting his child-support obligation, would have been $6,822.
Using that figure, respondent’s proportion of the child-care costs is
59%. Thus, respondent’s monthly
child-care contribution should be $184.08.
Respondent argues that his net monthly income, for the purpose of
determining child-care costs, cannot exceed the $6,280 “income limit” set by
Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) and (k), which provide the method for
determining child support. Respondent
relies on the language of Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(ii)(E), which
provides that the child-care contribution shall be determined as a proportion of
each parent’s net income “as determined under this subdivision * * * .”
We reject respondent’s argument.
the determinations of a party’s child-support obligation and child-care
contribution are both based on a party’s net monthly income, those obligations
are calculated differently. A
guideline child-support obligation is computed by applying the statutory
guidelines to the net-income figure that is calculated by reducing a party’s
total monthly income by the permitted deductions listed in the statute.
The percentages listed in the guidelines, however, do not apply to
amounts exceeding $6,280. Minn.
Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) and (k); see
also Cost of Living Adjustment to Child Support Guidelines, No. C9-85-1134
(Minn. Mar. 12, 1998 & Apr. 19, 2000) (adjusting figure to account for
cost-of-living changes). Thus, the limitation on child support is not a function of a limitation on the calculation of net monthly
income, but of the amount of income subject to the guidelines.
No such limitation is included in Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(ii)(E),
which simply states that the cost of child care is to based on the parents’
“net income, as determined under this subdivision * * *
also reject respondent’s argument that the district court erred in calculating
appellant’s net income because the court permitted a retirement plan
deduction. Respondent did not seek
to obtain review of this issue by filing a notice for review and nothing in the
record suggests that this deduction is unreasonable.
therefore modify the judgment insofar as it sets the amount of respondent’s
child-care contribution, and order that contribution to be $184.08 per month.
Appellant next argues that the district court erred in its
characterization and division of marital property.
The question of whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question
of law that this court may review de novo, but the underlying facts found by the
district court will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Swick v. Swick, 467
N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn. App. 1991), review
denied (Minn. May 16, 1991).
The district court found that the homestead was purchased on June 4,
1987, treated the homestead as marital property, and awarded it to appellant.
The district court further found that, although appellant claimed a
$10,000 nonmarital interest in the homestead, she presented neither testimony
nor documentary evidence to support that contention.
Appellant argues that the district court erred by failing to recognize
her $10,000 nonmarital interest in the homestead because her pleadings state
that interest and it is undisputed that the purchase took place two years before
Minnesota law provides that nonmarital property includes real or personal
property acquired before the marriage, as well as increases in the value of that
property. Minn. Stat. § 518.54,
subd. 5 (2000). Property is
presumptively marital; a spouse claiming a nonmarital interest must prove that
interest by a preponderance of the evidence.
Id.; Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).
Calculation of a nonmarital interest requires courts to consider the
amount of the original nonmarital contribution, the value of the property at the
time of marriage, and the present value of the property.
Schmitz v. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Minn. 1981).
Appellant, originally represented by counsel in this dissolution action
at a July 1999 settlement conference, elected to proceed to trial without
counsel. Appellant presented no
testimony concerning her claim to a nonmarital interest in the homestead and no
documentary evidence to support the $10,000 figure referenced in her pleadings.
Nevertheless, she asks that this court, in equity, recognize her claim.
But the record provides no basis for doing so.
The evidence is insufficient to allow the district court or this court to
calculate appellant’s claimed nonmarital interest because there is no evidence
of her original contribution or the homestead’s value at the time of the
some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly
emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as
attorneys and must comply with court rules.
Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach, 399 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Minn.
App. 1987); Ronay v. Ronay, 369 N.W.2d
12, 14 (Minn. App. 1985). The
record shows that the district court explained, and appellant understood, the
necessity of presenting evidence at trial.
We conclude that the district court did not err by finding that appellant
failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a nonmarital interest in
B. Retirement Plans
Appellant argues that the district court erred by failing to recognize
her nonmarital interests in her
pension plan and her Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
Appellant contends that her interests are 28%, calculated by dividing the
number of years she participated in the plans before marriage by the total
number of years of participation before dissolution.
TSP account, on October 31, 1999, had a value of $122,666.
The district court awarded appellant a 28% nonmarital share of those
funds ($34,346.48), plus an additional $53,912.02, which amounts to more than
half of the $88,319.52 marital portion of the TSP account value.
In addition, the district court provided that, pursuant to a qualified
domestic relations order, appellant will, upon retirement, receive a nonmarital
share of her pension funds. That
share is to be calculated by dividing the months of her participation in the
plan before the marriage and after dissolution by the total number of months of
service to her employer. We
conclude that there is no error because the district court awarded appellant
nonmarital interests in both retirement plans based on the formula she
C. Income Tax Refunds
Appellant decided to file separate income tax returns in 1998 and 1999,
thereby increasing respondent’s income tax liability.
Appellant argues that the district court erred by finding income tax
refunds she received for those tax years to be marital property because the
parties separated in June 1998. Appellant
also contends that the refunds represent income withheld and now returned, and
cites Kruschel v. Kruschel, 419 N.W.2d
119 (Minn. App. 1988), for the proposition that a district court may not treat
an item as both income and property.
The district court did not, however, treat appellant’s income tax
refunds as income for either party, but instead treated the refunds as property.
See Rundell v. Rundell, 423
N.W.2d 77, 81-82 (Minn. App. 1988) (affirming conclusion that tax refunds
acquired during the marriage were a marital asset); Crace
v. Crace, 396 N.W.2d 877, 881 (Minn. App. 1986) (same), review
denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 1987).
property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and before the
valuation date is presumed to be marital property” regardless of whether title
is held individually or in co-ownership. Minn.
Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5. Property
is nonmarital if acquired “after the valuation date * * * .”
Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd.
5(d) (2000). Generally, the
valuation date is to be the “day of the initially scheduled prehearing
settlement conference.” Minn.
Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (2000). In
this case, it appears that the initial pre-hearing settlement conference took
place on April 20, 1999. The
district court, however, used different valuation dates for various assets,
including December 31, 1999, and did so without objection by appellant.
Although an argument for an alternative valuation date is certainly
sustainable, particularly with respect to the 1999 income tax refund, we
conclude that the district court did not err by treating appellant’s 1998 and
1999 tax refunds as marital property and equitably dividing the assets.
The district court did not err by (1) finding appellant had not proven
her claim to a nonmarital share in the homestead; (2) awarding appellant
nonmarital interests in her retirement plans in accordance with the formula she
suggested; or by (3) concluding that appellant’s 1998 and 1999 income tax
refunds are marital property. The
district court miscalculated, however, respondent’s net income by deducting
expenses which do not fit the categories listed in Minn. Stat. § 518.551,
subd. 5(b) (2000), thereby understating his required child-care contribution.
We therefore affirm the judgment as modified.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment
pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(ii)(E) provides that:
court * * * shall allocate the costs to each parent in proportion to each
parent’s net income, as determined under this subdivision, after the
transfer of child support and spousal maintenance * * * .
The cost of child care * * * is 75 percent of the actual cost paid
for child care * * * .
The record shows that the Federal Thrift Savings Plan is a retirement
savings plan for federal government employees.
Although respondent argues that appellant has not proven a 28%
nonmarital interest in the TSP funds, we decline to address that issue
because respondent did not seek to obtain review of that issue by filing a
notice for review pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 106.