Preview:

In re the Marriage of: Bruce Engebretson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Julie Engebretson, Respondent. C0-96-448, Court of Appeals Unpublished, December 10, 1996.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. sec. 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C0-96-448 In re the Marriage of: Bruce Engebretson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Julie Engebretson, Respondent. Filed December 10, 1996 Affirmed Randall, Judge Otter Tail County District Court File No. F8-94-2023 John A. Hatling, Hatling Law Office, 1005 Pebble Lake Road, Box 205, Fergus Falls, MN 56538 (for appellant) Rolf H. Nycklemoe, Nycklemoe & Ellig, 106 E. Washington, P.O. Box E, Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0960 (for respondent) Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Huspeni, Judge, and Randall, Judge. UNPUBLISHEDOPINION RANDALL, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's decision on appellant's petition for dissolution of marriage, award of custody, and division of property. We affirm. FACTS Appellant Bruce Engebretson and respondent Julie Engebretson were married on June 20, 1987. The Engebretsons gave birth to their daughter, K., on February 11, 1989. Shortly after K.'s birth, appellant suffered a disabling, workrelated back injury. As a result of his injury, appellant received a disability insurance payment of $5,300 and a workers' compensation award of $4,300. The parties used these sums to make home repairs and improvements, buy a used pickup truck, and cover other household expenses.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/448.htm[4/16/2013 7:39:27 PM]

In re the Marriage of: Bruce Engebretson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Julie Engebretson, Respondent. C0-96-448, Court of Appeals Unpublished, December 10, 1996.

Appellant has not worked outside of the home since his injury. Until June, 1994, when respondent obtained an order granting her temporary custody of K., appellant stayed home with K. during the day, while respondent worked outside of the home. Appellant currently receives $603 per month in combined disability and social security payments. Respondent receives monthly after-tax income of approximately $800 and has acquired an interest in a work-related pension plan worth $4,500. The parties bought their home for $42,000 on Oct. 20, 1990. At the time of the purchase, respondent's grandfather gave respondent $5,500, which the parties applied to the cost of their home and the court found to be a nonmarital gift. The parties currently owe more than $44,000 under two mortgages on their home, which the court found to be worth no more than $40,000, in effect finding that the home had no equity. The HRA will forgive one of the mortgages, in the amount of $10,000, if at least one of the parties occupies the home until the year 2004. Appellant petitioned the district court in forma pauperis for dissolution of his marriage with respondent, an award of physical custody of the parties' child, and division of the parties' marital estate. The district court issued an order dissolving the parties' marriage, awarding physical custody of the child to respondent, and awarding the parties' home to respondent. Appellant moved for amended findings and conclusions and for a new trial. The district court amended its earlier findings and conclusions to reflect a decrease in appellant's income, and reduced appellant's child support obligation accordingly, but denied appellant further relief. Appellant sought review of the district court decision in forma pauperis. The district court denied appellant in forma pauperis status on appeal on the ground that appellant failed to establish that his appeal was not frivolous. DECISION A trial court has broad discretion to provide for custody of marital children, divide marital property, and award spousal maintenance. Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984). A trial court abuses its discretion only where it makes a clearly erroneous conclusion contrary to logic and the facts on record. Id. A reviewing court must examine the trial court record in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings. Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515, 521 (Minn. 1993). 1. Appellant argues that the district court erred in awarding physical custody to respondent because the court based its award on a clearly erroneous finding that respondent is K.'s primary caretaker, and disregarded appellant's claims of abuse. Under Minnesota law, a court must consider numerous factors in determining the best interests of a child and awarding physical custody. See Minn. Stat.

Download 448.pdf

Minnesota Law