This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C9-98-1893

Rosemary A. Rooney, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

Timothy J. Rooney,

Appellant.

Filed May 4, 1999

Affirmed

Kalitowski, Judge

Wright County District Court

File No. F4882009

Timothy J. Looby, Melchert Hubert Sjodin, PLLP, 121 West Main, Suite 200, Waconia, MN 55387 (for respondent)

Wynn Curtiss, Vesely, Miller & Steiner, P.A., 400 Norwest Bank Building, 1011 First Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Huspeni, Judge.[*]

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

KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellant Timothy Rooney challenges the administrative law judge's (ALJ) rulings: (1) allowing respondent Rosemary Rooney to provide medical insurance for the parties' children; (2) removing the requirement that respondent reimburse appellant for certain medical costs; and (3) denying appellant's motion for a new trial. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

The traditional standard of review applies on appeal of an ALJ's rulings in a family law case. Lee v. Lee, 459 N.W.2d 365, 368-69 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1990); see Minn. Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 4(j) (1998) (ALJ's decision "is appealable to the court of appeals in the same manner as a decision of the district court"). Under that standard, findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous and legal issues are reviewed de novo. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 (findings of fact); Frost Benco Elec. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn. 1984) (legal issues).

I.

The court "shall" order the party with the "better" insurance to insure the parties' child. Minn. Stat. § 518.171, subd. 1(a)(2) (1998) (emphasis added). Appellant contends the mandatory language of the statute entitles him to insure the child because the parties' insurance plans are the same except that his is cheaper, and therefore better, than respondent's. We disagree.

The statute does not define "better." Also, the terms of the parties' insurance plans were not submitted to the ALJ for comparison. Evidence submitted to the ALJ indicated respondent's plan costs $182 per month but has no deductible. Although appellant claimed without supporting evidence that his insurance has no deductible, respondent challenged that assertion.

Appellant's prior refusal to provide medical insurance for the child supports the ALJ's concern that appellant could not be trusted to insure the child. We defer to credibility determinations made by a fact-finder. See Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations); County of Nicollet v. Haakenson, 497 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Minn. App. 1993) (this court defers to ALJ's credibility determination). We conclude that the ALJ properly considered the best interests of the child and that the limited record does not indicate the ALJ clearly erred in implicitly finding respondent's insurance policy "better" than appellant's.

II.

Appellant challenges the ALJ's determination that respondent was not required to repay appellant for certain costs related to health insurance incurred between April 1995 and February 1998. Appellant contends he is entitled to repayment of these amounts because during the relevant period, he could have insured the child at no cost to the parties. The ALJ found appellant's argument "lack[ed] credibility" because it was inconsistent with his testimony and "defie[d] common sense." We defer to the ALJ's credibility determinations. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d at 210; Haakenson, 497 N.W.2d at 615. Because the record supports the ALJ's determination that appellant refused to insure the child in an attempt to compel respondent to pay amounts associated with a Carver County conciliation court proceeding, we conclude the ALJ's ruling that respondent was not required to repay appellant was not an abuse of discretion.

III.

Appellant argues he should have been granted a new trial. A "support order" includes an order providing for medical support. Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 4a (1998). Support orders are modified under Minn. Stat. § 518.64 (1998). Because postdecree motions to modify a support order under Minn. Stat. § 518.64 do not involve a "trial," a "new trial" motion is not authorized. Huso v. Huso, 465 N.W.2d 719, 721 (Minn. App. 1991). We conclude the ALJ did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's unauthorized motion.

Affirmed.

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