This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).






In re the Marriage of:

Wyatt Orendorf, petitioner,





Tammy Orendorf,





Polk County, intervenor,



Filed April 11, 2006

Affirmed as modified
Klaphake, Judge


Polk County District Court

File No. F6-96-1758


Erin Muldoon, 1312 Central Avenue N.E., P.O. Box 386, East Grand Forks, MN  56721 (for respondent Wyatt Orendorf)


Tammy L. Orendorf, 512 E. Prairie Street, #3, Warren, MN  56762 (pro se appellant)


Larry Orvik, 223 E. 7th, Suite 101, Crookston, MN 56721 (for respondent Polk County)


            Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Hudson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Appellant Tammy Orendorf challenges the district court’s order calculating child support arrearages owed to her by her former husband, respondent Wyatt Orendorf, and modifying appellant’s child support obligation by extending it through the child’s graduation from high school, rather than through the child’s 18th birthday.  Because the district court erred in its calculations, we modify the amount credited to appellant, but because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the extension of appellant’s support obligation.


            Extension of Support

            This court reviews the district court’s orders modifying support obligations for an abuse of discretion and accords the same standard to a child support magistrate’s (CSM) orders.  Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 347 (Minn. 2002).  The district court abuses its discretion when it resolves a matter in a manner that is “against logic and the facts on record.”  Id. (citations omitted). 

            For purposes of support, a “child” is defined as “an individual under 18 years of age, an individual under the age of 20 who is still attending secondary school, or an individual who, by reason of physical or mental condition, is incapable of self-support.”  Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 2 (2004).  The child in question here, T.O., will graduate from high school on June 1, 2006, shortly before her 19th birthday.  The district court’s order for support complies with the statute.

            Appellant argues that respondent made the decision to have T.O. repeat 8th grade without consulting her, and she should not be obligated to pay support beyond T.O.’s 18th birthday because she had no input in that decision.  But the original order and amended order transferring custody of T.O. to respondent and establishing the support obligation is open-ended, with no specific end date. Respondent had T.O. repeat 8th grade, the grade she had just finished when custody was modified, because she had struggled during 8th grade while living at appellant’s home, had done poorly despite being on an individual educational plan, and was young compared to her classmates at the new school. 

            Because the CSM’s decision to extend child support through T.O.’s graduation from high school is supported by both the record facts and the law, the order for extended support is not an abuse of discretion.


            Respondent has conceded that the CSM erred in calculating arrearages, which involved set-offs over a period of 17 months because both parties were in arrears.  In making the calculation, the CSM used $877, rather than $887, as respondent’s monthly support obligation.  Using the correct figures, appellant should have been credited with $404, rather than $238.  She thus should be credited an additional $166.

            We therefore modify the district court’s order by crediting appellant with an additional $166, based on arrearages owed to her by respondent, and affirm the order extending appellant’s support obligation through T.O.’s graduation from high school.

            Affirmed as modified.