Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-0794 Todd Michael Bauerly, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Suzanne Mary Bauerly, Respondent. Filed May 5, 2009 Reversed and remanded Schellhas, Judge Wright County District Court File No. 86-F9-04-002633 Alan J. Albrecht, Albrecht & Associates, Ltd., 7066 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (for appellant) Daniel J. Goldberg, Messerli & Kramer, P.A.,1800 Fifth Street Tower, 150 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent) Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Schellhas, Judge. SYLLABUS Minnesota Statutes, section 518A.52, which states that a public authority shall compensate an obligor for overpaid support through reducing debts and arrearages owed to the obligee and by reducing future support, constitutes a mandate only as to the public authority and does not limit a district court's inherent power to grant equitable relief. Because a district court has inherent equitable powers in marriage-dissolution cases, a district court may, in its discretion, order compensation for overpaid support.

OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge After remand, appellant seeks review of the district court's order recalculating his child-support obligation and denying his request for compensation for overpaid support. We reverse and remand. FACTS The marriage of appellant Todd Michael Bauerly (father) and respondent Suzanne Mary Bauerly (mother) was dissolved by judgment entered August 31, 2005. The parties stipulated to joint legal custody of their two minor children and sole physical custody to mother, subject to father's parenting time. Mother was awarded child support from father in the amount of $1,505 per month, which the district court calculated after finding that father's net income was $5,015 per month. Father moved for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, and an amended dissolution judgment was filed on January 25, 2006. The amended judgment changed the formula for computing father's share of daycare costs and added a provision addressing dependency exemptions. Father appealed from the amended judgment, claiming numerous errors by the district court, including an incorrect calculation of his net income. We reversed the district court's finding of father's net monthly income and child-support obligation and remanded for "recalculation based on the most current income evidence presented at trial, or an explanation of why the use of that evidence would not be appropriate." Bauerly v. Bauerly, No. A06-557, 2007 WL 1053254, at *4 (Minn. App. Apr. 10, 2007) (footnote omitted). We acknowledged that there was mention at oral arguments that father's

2

employment had changed since the judgment was entered, and noted that "a determination of income and the child-support obligation at the time of the dissolution may impact later motions for modification." Id. at *4 n.4 (emphasis added). On remand, father moved the district court for an order reducing his child-support obligation "retroactive to the date of entry of the Judgment and Decree" and requiring mother to reimburse him for "[c]hild support erroneously withheld." Father proposed recalculation of his child-support obligation for the period beginning September 2005 and ending December 2006, when he began new employment, and argued that he should receive "credit for overpaid child support" during that period. Father also proposed a calculation of his child-support obligation for the period beginning January 2007 and ending December 2007 and sought "credit for overpaid support" for that period. Additionally, father sought to be reimbursed for his payments on mother's student loan and for a "[j]oint tax liability taken from [him]." Mother asked that any reduction in father's child-support obligation be prospective, arguing that her ability to provide a financially secure household for the children would be jeopardized if support were reduced to reimburse father for overpaid support. On March 18, 2008, the district court amended the judgment and found that father's net monthly income at the time of trial was $4,173.34, based on the most recent paystub that he submitted at trial. The district court recalculated child support at

$1,252.01 per month, which is $252.99 per month less than the amount stated in the original judgment, effective from the date of the March 2008 order. The district court did not apply the reduced child-support obligation as of the date of the dissolution judgment, 3

did not order mother to reimburse father for "previously paid child support," and denied all other motions. This appeal follows. ISSUE Did the district court abuse its discretion on remand when it corrected a childsupport obligation as of the date of its order on remand rather than the date of the original dissolution judgment? ANALYSIS A district court order regarding child support will be reversed only where a district court abused its discretion by resolving the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on the record. Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 347 (Minn. 2002). Misapplying the law is an abuse of discretion. Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985). A district court's duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court "strictly according to its terms." Duffey v. Duffey, 432 N.W.2d 473, 476 (Minn. App. 1988). "When the trial court receives no specific directions as to how it should proceed in fulfilling the remanding court's order, the trial court has discretion . . . to proceed in any manner not inconsistent with the remand order." Id. Effective Date of Child-Support Correction Mother argues that the district court properly exercised its discretion by making the effective date of its correction of father's child-support obligation the date of its order on remand rather than the date of the dissolution judgment. We disagree. Based on our instructions, the district court on remand should have corrected father's child-support obligation as of "the time of the dissolution," not the date of the district court's order on 4

remand. By correcting father's child-support obligation effective as of the date of the order on remand, the district court functionally eliminated any support overpayment by father. This was an abuse of the district court's discretion. Father's child-support obligation must be corrected as of the child-support award in the original dissolution judgment. Compensation for Child-Support Overpayment A child-support overpayment exists if the amount of father's support obligation is corrected as of the date of the original dissolution judgment. Father argues that he overpaid child support because of the district court's error in the original dissolution judgment and that he should be compensated for the overpayment under Minn. Stat.

Download A08-794, Todd Michael Bauerly, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Suzanne Mary Bauerly,

Minnesota Law