This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In re the Marriage of:
Filed April 11, 2006
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)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Hudson, Judge.
Extension of Support
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 (
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
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.