This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

CX-97-712

County of Ramsey,

Respondent,

vs.

Matthew Belille,

Appellant.

Filed October 28, 1997

Affirmed

Short, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. F879511655

Susan E. Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Theresa J. Walton, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, 50 W. Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 560, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)

Thomas B. James, Law Office of Thomas B. James, 440 North Broadway Avenue, Cokato, MN 55321 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Parker, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

SHORT, Judge

This case involves a motion for forgiveness of child support arrearages, brought over 8 years after final judgment was entered. On appeal from an order denying relief, Matthew Belille argues the administrative law judge erred by (1) applying the pre-1987 child support modification standard, and (2) applying Rule 60 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure to his motion for forgiveness of arrears. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

Subject to certain limitations, an administrative law judge (ALJ) has the same power as a trial court in modifying child support obligations. Minn. Stat. § 518.5511 subd. 1(e) (1996). An ALJ is afforded broad discretion in child support cases, and the reviewing court must affirm an administrative decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See Minn. Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 4(h) (providing decisions of ALJ are appealable in same manner as decisions of trial court); Lee v. Lee, 459 N.W.2d 365, 368-69 (Minn. App. 1990) (concluding trial court standards of review are applicable to review of ALJ's order), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1990). Under an abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts look to "whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law." Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Minn. 1993) (case citations omitted).

Belille argues the ALJ erred by applying the pre-1987 child modification standard to his motion for forgiveness of arrearages. We disagree. Child support is modified pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.64. Heaton v. Heaton, 329 N.W.2d 553, 554 (Minn. 1983). The forgiveness of arrearage is analyzed as a retroactive modification under Minn. Stat. § 518.64. Bruner v. Bruner, 429 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. Nov. 30, 1988). Under both the pre-1987 and post-1987 child modification statutes, child support may be modified only upon a showing of substantially changed circumstances that make the terms of the prior order unreasonable and unfair. See Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (1996) (holding terms of decree respecting child support may be modified upon showing change in circumstances making terms of child support unreasonable and unfair or upon showing of extraordinary medical expenses of child not provided for under section 518.171; or addition of work-related or education-related child care expenses of obligee or substantial increase or decrease in existing work-related or education-related child care expenses); Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (1986) (holding terms of decree respecting child support may be modified upon showing change in circumstances making terms of child support unreasonable and unfair).

The ALJ found the testimony and documentary evidence presented by Belille insufficient to establish his inability to pay child support. The record demonstrates: (1) Belille's relevant testimony was vague and uncertain; (2) Belille failed to document his income from 1980 to 1987; (3) Belille worked as a truck driver for 25 years (until 1988); and (4) Belille is currently employed and receives social security. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the ALJ abused his discretion in denying Belille's motion for retroactive modification of child support. See Heaton, 329 N.W.2d at 554 (holding party seeking modification must show support terms are unreasonable and unfair). Because we conclude Belille failed to show his support terms are unreasonable and unfair, we need not address his Rule 60 argument.

Affirmed.