This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

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








In re the Marriage of:

Lawrence Wayne Schneider, petitioner,

Jill Lynn Schneider,
Respondent Below,

County of Anoka, intervenor,



Filed August 28, 2007


Peterson, Judge



Anoka County District Court

File No. F4-02-2516



Lawrence W. Schneider, 1586 Park Street, St. Paul, MN55126-4514 (pro se respondent)



Robert M.A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Bethany A. Lindberg, D. Marie Sieber, Assistant County Attorneys, Anoka County Government Center, 2100 Third Avenue, Seventh Floor, Anoka, MN† 55303 (for appellant)



††††††††††† Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Shumaker, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D†† O P I N I O N



††††††††††† In this child-support-related dispute involving the suspension of respondent-fatherís driverís license, appellant-county argues that the record does not support the fine imposed on the county for erroneously suspending fatherís driverís license.† We reverse.


††††††††††† In February 2006, appellant County of Anoka served on respondent Lawrence Schneider a notice of hearing and intention to suspend respondentís driverís license under Minn. Stat. ß 518.551, subd. 13 (2004).† That statute permits suspension of a child-support obligorís driverís license if the obligor has accrued child-support arrearages equal to or greater than the amount owed for three months of child support.† Following a hearing in February 2006, a child-support magistrate (CSM) found that respondent had accrued child-support arrearages in an amount greater than three times his monthly child-support obligation and was not in compliance with a payment plan that he entered into in May 2005.† But the CSM also found that respondent was unemployed and had made substantial child-support payments in January and February 2006, considering his financial circumstances.† The CSM temporarily denied the countyís request to suspend fatherís driverís license, pending an April 2006 review hearing.†

††††††††††† At the April 2006 review hearing, the county admitted that, contrary to the CSMís order, respondentís license had been suspended due to actions of the countyís child-support department and was still suspended.† The CSM imposed a $150 fine against the county to reimburse respondent for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the countyís wrongful suspension of his driverís license, and judgment was entered accordingly.† The district court affirmed the CSMís order.† This appeal followed.


††††††††††† The county argues that the fine imposed against it should be reversed because the evidence does not support the finding that respondent incurred $150 in costs as a result of the suspension of his driverís license.

††††††††††† When a district court affirms a CSMís ruling, the CSMís ruling becomes the ruling of the district court, and an appellate court reviews the district courtís decision.† Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 673 N.W.2d 528, 530 n.2 (Minn. App. 2004).† There is no statutory authority authorizing the fine imposed against the county.† Thus, if authority exists, it would arise under the district courtís inherent power to award equitable relief.† See DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa, 309 N.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Minn. 1981) (discussing inherent authority of courts in dissolution matters); see also Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 351 (Minn. 2002) (discussing courtís inherent authority in child-support matters); Kronick v. Kronick, 482 N.W.2d 533, 535 (Minn. App. 1992) (addressing without deciding issue of whether court had inherent power to award private fines in dissolution cases).

††††††††††† The decision to grant equitable relief is within the discretion of the court and will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.† Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438, 450 (Minn. App. 2001).† ďIn all civil cases without a jury, a trial court is required to find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.† The purpose of the rule is to aid an appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the ground or basis of the decision.Ē† Nelson v. Nelson, 384 N.W.2d 468, 471 (Minn. App. 1986) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 307, 242 N.W.2d 88, 94-95 (1976) (requiring written findings and conclusions of law of both referee and district court showing grounds for decision on a motion to modify custody).† A district court abuses its discretion when it reaches ďa clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.Ē Putz, 645 N.W.2d at 347.

††††††††††† The district court specifically stated that it awarded respondent $150 for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the countyís wrongful suspension of his driverís license.† Respondent indicated at the April 2006 review hearing that it had been difficult for him to seek employment without a driverís license.† But he presented no evidence of specific costs incurred or job-seeking opportunities missed as a result of the suspension of his driverís license.† Because the record contains no evidence regarding costs incurred by respondent as a result of the suspension of his driverís license and the incurrence of costs by respondent was the stated reason for imposing the fine against the county, the district court abused its discretion in imposing the fine, and we reverse.

††††††††††† Because we are reversing on evidentiary grounds, we need not address the countyís argument that the district court did not have inherent authority to impose the fine.

††††††††††† Reversed.