This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In Re the Marriage of:
Tamara Lee Osowski, petitioner,
Jon Michael Osowski,
Filed December 19, 2000
Ramsey County District Court
File No. FX973248
Gary G. Liebmann, 501 East Highway 13, Suite 114, Burnsville, MN 55337 (for appellant)
Patricia A. O’Gorman, 8750 90th Street South, Suite 207, Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant Tamara Osowski contends the district court abused its discretion in: (1) awarding respondent Jon Michael Osowski more than his proportional share of her pension earned during the marriage and requiring that she name him the sole survivor; (2) amending its findings and conclusions regarding respondent’s income without allowing appellant to conduct additional discovery; and (3) not awarding appellant her share of certain assets in respondent’s possession. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
A district court has broad discretion with respect to the division of property. Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984). For this court to conclude the district court abused its discretion, the district court’s findings of fact must be “against logic and the facts on [the] record.” Id. (citation omitted). Appellant argues the district court abused its discretion by awarding respondent rights to her pension that exceed the proportional interest he gained during the marriage, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 518.581, subd. 2(c) (Supp. 1999), and by restricting her right to name survivors to her pension plan other than respondent. We disagree.
Appellant and respondent disagree as to the interpretation of the judgment’s pension plan provision. Whether a dissolution judgment is ambiguous is a legal question. See Head v. Metropolitan. Life Ins. Co., 449 N.W.2d 449, 452 (Minn. App. 1989) (interpreting provision in dissolution judgment regarding insurance coverage), review denied (Minn. Feb. 21, 1990);Halverson v. Halverson, 381 N.W.2d 69, 71 (Minn. App. 1986) (stipulated maintenance provision in judgment). There is no ambiguity in the present case.
To support her argument appellant relies on one paragraph of the pension provision which, standing alone, appears to indicate respondent was improperly awarded a disproportionate share. But, the paragraph must be read in the context of the entire provision, which details the fractional interest awarded to respondent. Respondent’s interest, including survivor rights, is limited to those pension benefits accumulated during the marriage between the parties and respondent was specifically awarded 50% of the fractional share of any annuity. Thus the provision, when read in its entirety, properly awards respondent his fractional share of the pension that was accumulated during the marriage and makes him the sole joint annuitant for that fractional share only.
A district court’s findings on net income for purposes of child support will be affirmed on appeal if those findings have a reasonable basis in fact and are not clearly erroneous. State ex rel. Rimolde v. Tinker, 601 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Minn. App. 1999). Appellant argues that the district court’s findings have no reasonable basis in fact because the district court relied only on wage stubs provided by respondent and did not allow appellant to conduct discovery. We disagree.
District courts have considerable discretion in granting or denying discovery requests in civil actions, and, absent clear abuses of discretion, the decisions will not be disturbed on appeal. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(a); Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, 454 N.W.2d 916, 921 (Minn. 1990). At the district court hearing, the court stated it was not “inclined to allow any further discovery,” but it would look at all the information and make a decision. Respondent submitted a detailed affidavit supported by wage stubs, tax guidelines, and benefit information. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the additional discovery request and that the district court’s income determination was reasonably based in fact.
Finally, a district court has broad discretion in dividing property and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d at 50. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award her part of the value of art prints in respondent’s possession. We disagree.
At the hearing, respondent testified that he took the prints because appellant had the “television, the VCR, the play station, all of the videos, the movies [etc.].” He requested the court to award the paintings to him and the quoted items to appellant. In its order, the district court awarded each party the items in that party’s possession. Because the court’s division of property has a reasonable basis in fact, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.