This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In re the Marriage of:
Leyla Tarlan, petitioner,
Beltrami County District Court
File No. F9-98-935
James D. Hovey, Pearson Christenson, P.L.L.P., 24 North 4th Street, P.O. Box 5758, Grand Forks, ND 58206-5758 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
On appeal after remand, appellant Leyla Tarlan challenges the district court’s child-support-related findings made on remand, as well as her obligation to pay support retroactively to August 2001. Because the record does not support the district court’s decision, we reverse.
The factual background for this case is set forth in Tarlan v. Sorensen, No. C5-02-1945, 2003 WL 21694407 (Minn. App. July 22, 2003). There, we remanded Tarlan’s support obligation because the district court “made insufficient findings regarding the child-support calculation and basis for the retroactive award of child support[.]” Id. at *1. On remand, the district court made findings purportedly supporting its original decision.
A district court has broad discretion to address child-support matters, and its decision will not be altered on appeal unless the district court has abused its discretion. Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 347 (Minn. 2002). Findings of fact will not be set-aside on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. When a party appeals findings of fact, we need not recite the evidence supporting each challenged finding. Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 474 n.1 (Minn. App. 2000). Our duty is satisfied when we consider all the evidence and address whether it supports the findings. Wilson v. Moline, 234 Minn. 174, 182, 47 W 2d 865, 870 (1951).
In addressing support, the district court neither found Tarlan’s net monthly income nor imputed income to her. See Thomas v. Thomas, 407 N.W.2d 124, 127 (Minn. App. 1987) (requiring support to be based on obligor’s current net income); see also Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 240 (Minn. App. 2003) (noting income may be imputed to or estimated for obligor where obligor is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, or where it is impracticable to determine obligor’s actual income), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003). Here, there is no evidence that would support a finding of Tarlan’s income. The record lacks evidence addressing whether Tarlan’s auto-sales business was generating income, and also lacks evidence establishing the amount she will receive when the assets from her mother’s trust are distributed, that issue not having been addressed at the evidentiary hearing and not reopened on remand. Furthermore, the record shows that as of the June 27, 2002 hearing, Tarlan’s Bookcraft, Inc. was not producing income. Thus, the district court’s supplemental findings are insufficient and insufficiently support its determination that Tarlan has access to, or control of, substantial assets and can afford to pay support at the maximum amount under the guidelines. We reverse the district court on this point.
We also reverse the district court’s retroactive child-support award. On this record, and in an attempt to expedite final resolution of the support issue, we conclude that Tarlan’s support obligation was initially reserved, and that the district court imposed a support obligation on her after the June 27, 2002 evidentiary hearing. Therefore, if Sorensen seeks implementation of that child support obligation in the future, and if the district court requires Tarlan to pay a specific amount of support, the award should not become effective prior to June 27, 2002. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(d) (2002).
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI § 10.