This opinion will be unpublished and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

A05-1080
A05-1414

 

 

In re the Marriage of:

Dorene Marjorie Blooflat,

petitioner,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Bennett David Blooflat,

Appellant.

 

 

Filed April 11, 2006

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Crippen, Judge*

 

Hennepin County District Court

File No. DC 238 481

 

Dorene Marjorie Blooflat, 5517 Fremont Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419 (pro se respondent)

 

Bennett David Blooflat, 23653 165th Avenue, Fort Ripley, MN 56449 (pro se appellant)

 

            Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

CRIPPEN, Judge

            Appellant Bennett David Blooflat disputes the denial of his motion for a downward modification of his child support award.  Appellant contends that the magistrate failed to properly consider the limited job opportunities available for him in the community where he now resides.  Because appellant challenges the magistrate’s findings of fact, including her ultimate finding as to the absence of a change rendering the prior award unjust, and has failed to furnish a transcript of the hearing in which the matter was determined, we affirm.  We reverse in part to correct the magistrate’s refusal to stay a cost-of-living-adjustment. 

FACTS

            In 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 Morrison County in order to join a woman to whom he is now married.  The magistrate denied this motion based on findings that appellant had voluntarily quit his Twin City’s employment and inadequately sought new employment.  There was no appeal from this order.

            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.

D E C I S I O N

1.  Child-Support Modification

            “Appellant 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 Minn. 28, 29, 157 N.W.2d 530, 531 (1968)). 

Appellant 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.  Bormann v. Bormann, 644 N.W.2d 478, 481 (Minn. App. 2002). 

Because the 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.  Minnesota law clearly states that “[t]he needs of subsequent children shall not be factored into a support guidelines calculation,” and that “[t]he fact that an obligor had additional children after the entry of a child support order is not grounds for a modification to decrease the amount of support owed.”  Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5f (2004).

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.