This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In re the Marriage of:
Filed April 11, 2006
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Hennepin County District Court
File No. DC 238 481
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.
2003, appellant’s support obligation was increased to $1,057 per month based on
net monthly income of $3,021. In 2004,
appellant moved for a reduction based on evidence that he left his employment
and moved from the Twin Cities to
In 2005, appellant again moved to modify his support obligation, claiming that his circumstances had changed because he had attempted to secure new employment. The magistrate recognized his current net income, which is less than he previously earned in the Twin Cities, but found that appellant was voluntarily underemployed and that there had been no substantial change of circumstances rendering the existing order unreasonable and unfair. The court criticized appellant’s efforts to secure better employment and faulted him for the acquisition of several items of personal property.
1. Child-Support Modification
has the burden to provide an adequate record,” including a transcript of
proceedings needed for review of the issues. See Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538
N.W.2d 489, 494 (Minn. App. 1995) (citing Noltimier v. Noltimier, 280
challenges the finding that it remains fair to base an award to some extent on
the earnings he enjoyed before voluntarily quitting his job in 2004. We are unable to review the disputed findings
without a full record, including a transcript of the modification hearing,
which would permit us to examine the presentations of the parties and any
responses of the magistrate. Because
appellant has failed to provide a transcript, our review here is limited to
whether the findings support the conclusions of law.
magistrate’s determination that appellant failed to show a substantial change
in circumstances making the prior order unreasonable and unfair supports the
conclusion that the motion to modify is unwarranted, we must affirm. There is no merit to appellant’s argument that
the court erred under the law by failing to take his subsequent child into
consideration when calculating his support obligation.
2. Cost-of-Living Adjustment
Appellant argues that the magistrate erred by denying his motion to stop a biennial cost-of-living adjustment. The decision to deny a motion to stay a cost-of-living adjustment is within the adjudicator’s broad discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” McClenahan v. Warner, 461 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn. App. 1990) (quotation omitted).
The magistrate determined that there was too little evidence of appellant’s earning history to permit a decision whether a cost-of-living adjustment would be appropriate. But there is sufficient evidence in the record with respect to appellant’s earning history, much of it appearing in prior court orders. Most centrally, there is a showing of a support award premised on 2003 earnings that appellant no longer receives. Nothing in the record suggests that the magistrate considered imputing greater income to appellant than he earned in 2003. We reverse and remand for the magistrate’s order staying the cost-of-living adjustment on the present support award.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.