This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).






In re the Marriage of:

Leoniede M. Brennan, petitioner,





William A. Braun,



Filed February 27, 2007


Halbrooks, Judge



Washington County District Court

File No. F5-98-6357



Leoniede M. Brennan, 8680 Marigold Circle #107, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (pro se respondent)


Andrew Moratzka, Mackall Crounse & Moore, PLC, 1400 AT&T Tower, 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Timothy Moratzka, bankruptcy trustee for respondent Brennan)


William Braun, 6248 Ridge Drive, Woodbury, MN 55125 (pro se appellant)



            Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Huspeni, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            In this post-dissolution matter, pro se appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to modify the parenting schedule.  We affirm.


            Appellant William A. Braun and respondent Leoniede M. Brennan were married less than 18 months.  The district court dissolved the marriage by judgment and decree in July 2002, granting joint legal custody of the parties’ child, L.B., with sole physical custody to respondent.  The district court awarded respondent $13,259 in a property-equalization payment, child support of $1,687 per month, and $30,000 in attorney fees for appellant’s discovery violations.  Appellant’s child-support obligation was subsequently reduced to $392.50 per month commencing January 1, 2004. 

            Appellant challenged the district court’s determinations of custody, child support, attorney fees, property settlement, and the district court’s failure to order that L.B. have appellant’s surname.  Brennan v. Braun, No. C4-02-1676, 2003 WL 21694157, at *1 (Minn. App. July 22, 2003), review denied (Minn. Sept. 24, 2003).  We affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded on the issue of attorney fees because the district court’s findings did not specify how appellant failed to comply with discovery requests or the specific basis for the dollar amount assessed.  Id. at *7.  We also declined to address the issue of L.B.’s last name before the district court addressed it.  Id.   

            In its February 3, 2004 order following remand, the district court outlined its support for the attorney-fee award, including appellant’s multiple failures to provide discovery responses.  The district court also granted a motion to intervene that had been brought by the bankruptcy trustee in appellant’s bankruptcy proceeding.  Appellant did not timely challenge the district court’s order.

            Appellant sought to proceed in forma pauperis in district court in 2004 and 2005; we denied appellant’s 2005 request for relief because the supreme court’s grant of in forma pauperis to appellant was limited to that court.  Brennan v. Braun, No. A05‑1260 (Minn. App. July 19, 2005) (order).  Appellant subsequently sought extraordinary relief from this court based on an August 2005 district court order denying his in forma pauperis motion.  We dismissed the petition and ordered that “[t]he Clerk of the Appellate Courts shall not accept any additional filing from the petitioner for proceedings in the court of appeals without (a) an order from the district court granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal or (b) payment of all required filing fees.”  Brennan v. Braun, No. A05-1710, at 2 (Minn. App. Aug. 31, 2005) (order). 

            On May 17, 2005, the bankruptcy trustee moved the district court to turn over a portion of the supersedeas bond in this matter.  Respondent also sought an award from the supersedeas bond to satisfy some or all of the previous awards to her for property settlement and attorney fees and moved for an increase in child support.  Appellant moved for modification of the parenting-time schedule.

            In its November 23, 2005 order, the district court ordered that $20,000 of the supersedeas bond be paid to the bankruptcy trustee, with the remaining $23,259 to be paid to respondent to satisfy the 2002 property settlement award of $13,259 and $10,000 of the earlier award of attorney fees.  The district court denied appellant’s motion to amend the parenting-time schedule set forth in the district court’s February 25, 2005 order and denied respondent’s motion for modification of child support and costs and attorney fees.  This appeal follows.



            Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to modify the parenting schedule.  The district court has broad discretion in deciding parenting-time issues, and unless the district court abuses that discretion, this court will not reverse its determination.  Olson v. Olson, 534 N.W.2d 547, 550 (Minn. 1995).    

            A district court must grant parenting time to “enable the child and the parent to maintain a child to parent relationship that will be in the best interests of the child.”  Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(a) (2006).  The district court must modify a parenting-time order “[i]f modification would serve the best interests of the child.”  Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5 (2006).  Restrictions may be made only if the parenting time would likely endanger the child or “the parent has chronically and unreasonably failed to comply with court-ordered parenting time.”  Id.

            Here, appellant claims that the district court interfered with a stipulated agreement regarding parenting time that the parties reached at the time of the dissolution.  But respondent alleged that appellant failed to comply with the stipulated schedule.  In establishing a new parenting-time schedule in its February 25, 2005 order, the district court stated that

a review of the file and the extensive efforts put forward by the [c]ourt in conjunction with a parenting time expeditor and a parenting consultant leaves the [c]ourt with the irrefutable conclusion that the [parenting-time] provisions currently in effect are not in [the child’s] best interests.  The [c]ourt finds it is in [the child’s] best interests that the provisions regarding [parenting time] currently in effect be vacated in their entirety, and the [c]ourt will order new [parenting-time] parameters herein.


Appellant received parenting time for two consecutive weekends alternating with respondent’s weekend of parenting time, alternating holidays, and one week in the summer.  In addition, appellant received two hours of parenting time every Tuesday evening, telephone contact on Monday and Thursday evenings between 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and visitation on every Father’s Day. 

In the November 23, 2005 order denying appellant’s motion to modify parenting time, the district court made the following factual finding:

In his responsive motion and motion filed July 22, 2005, [appellant] asks the Court to reconsider the visitation schedule.  [Appellant] revisits issues regarding visitation and the recommendations of Donna Cairncross which have been entirely superseded by the new visitation ordered by the Court in its Order of February 25, 2005.  The Court finds no compelling reason to reconsider the visitation as set forth in that Order.


Because the record supports the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to modify parenting time, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 


            Appellant asserts that this court questioned his son’s legitimacy by stating that L.B. was born in December 1997, before the parties were married.  Brennan v. Braun, No. C4-02-1676, 2003 WL 21694157 (Minn. App. July 22, 2003), review denied (Minn. Sept. 24, 2003).  The error was clerical in nature and certainly not intentional.  We note that the record should properly reflect that L.B. was born on December 3, 1998.


            Appellant raises several other issues that are not properly before us.  “An appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals . . . from a final judgment,” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03, “within 60 days after its entry, and from an appealable order within 60 days after service by any party of written notice of its filing.”  Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 1.  Because these issues either relate back to previous district court orders, which were not properly appealed, or have not been determined by the district court, we decline to consider them.


*  Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.