Grogg v. Rech

968 N.W.2d 45

In re the Marriage of: Brian Earl GROGG, petitioner, Appellant,

v.Karen Lynne RECH, Respondent.

A21-0068

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed October 18, 2021

Jill I. Frieders, O'Brien & Wolf, L.L.P., Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant)

Suzanne M. Remington, Erika N. Donner, Remington & Assoc., P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.

BRATVOLD, Judge

After the parties’ oldest of three children was emancipated, appellant-father moved to modify his child-support obligation. The district court denied father's motion, ruling that father showed a substantial change in circumstances but failed to show his existing support obligation was unreasonable and unfair. Father appeals, arguing (a) the district court misinterpreted the child-support-modification statute, Minn. Stat. § 518A.39 (2020), to require him to show, in addition to the child's emancipation, that his existing support obligation was unreasonable and unfair; and (b) even if Minn. Stat. § 518A.39 does require him to show his existing support obligation is unreasonable and unfair, father made the required showing. Because the district court correctly interpreted and applied Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, and because the record supports the district court's determination that father's existing support obligation is not unreasonable and unfair, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Brian Earl Grogg (father) and respondent Karen Lynne Rech (mother) married in June 1993 and have three children. Father petitioned for divorce in June 2011. In December 2011, the parties reached a stipulated marital-termination agreement, on which the district court entered judgment. The judgment states father would pay child support "until such time as [the parties’ youngest child] ... is emancipated ... at which time child support shall terminate." The judgment also states, "[e]mancipation of a child may be a basis for modification of child support."

In April 2019, father moved the district court to reduce his child-support obligation. Father relied on then-recent amendments to the child-support guidelines, which he argued were a substantial change in circumstances that made his current obligation unreasonable and unfair. Father asserted his monthly child-support obligation was $1,363.46 under the 2011 guidelines, but only $689.00 under the 2019 guidelines. The district court denied father's motion in a written order (2019 order). The district court reasoned while the amended guidelines were a substantial change in circumstances, the existing child-support obligation was not unreasonable and unfair. Father did not appeal the 2019 order.

In June 2020, father again moved the district court to modify his child-support obligation, this time based on emancipation of the parties’ oldest child. At the hearing, father argued "[w]hen we're dealing with emancipation of a child, the substantial change in circumstances that makes the order unreasonable and unfair is no longer the standard." Father also argued the modification statute "anticipated that a parent should not pay the same amount of child support for three children as he might for ... two" and the statute required modification of a child-support obligation when requested, based on current income. Mother argued the unreasonable-and-unfair prong of the support-modification analysis applies to emancipation-based modifications. She also contended the district court's "reasoning from [its 2019 order was] still applicable; and the court should reach the same result." (Emphasis omitted.)

In a December 2020 order and memorandum, the district court first accepted father's premise that emancipation of the oldest child was a substantial change in circumstances. The district court concluded, along with showing emancipation of the oldest child, "Father needs to demonstrate the current obligation is ‘unreasonable and unfair’ in order to prevail on this modification motion." The district court explained, relying on related provisions in section 518A.39, that "modification is not automatic upon emancipation when there are other children." In other words, the district court explained, emancipation alone is not an independent and sufficient basis to modify support under the statute; "[e]mancipation plus a showing of unreasonableness and unfairness is required."

The district court then considered whether emancipation of the parties’ oldest child rendered father's existing support obligation unreasonable and unfair. The district court concluded that "it does not[.]" The district court cited its 2019 order and reasoned "the dollar amount of the support reduction Father seeks here is mostly explained not by the amount of any actual expense reduction caused" by the oldest child's emancipation. Rather, father argues "this event triggers use of the new guidelines to recalculate a much smaller obligation." The district court denied father's motion.

This appeal follows.

ISSUE

When a party moves to modify child support based on emancipation of one child and the existing support order covers more than one child, is the movant required to show the existing support obligation is unreasonable and unfair?

ANALYSIS

Father argues the district court misinterpreted and misapplied the child-support-modification statute by requiring him to show his existing support obligation was unreasonable and unfair together with showing the child was emancipated. Because interpretation of section 518A.39 is central to our analysis, we address father's statutory-interpretation issue first, then consider whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied father's modification request.

A. Statutory interpretation

We begin by summarizing Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, which provides for modification of child support and spousal maintenance. This statute has eight subdivisions, only two of which are squarely at issue in this appeal, subdivisions 2 and 5. Subdivision 2, titled "Modification," provides that a district court may modify a child-support or maintenance order when the movant shows any of the eight listed circumstances makes the terms of the existing order "unreasonable and unfair." The eighth of those circumstances addresses emancipation of a child:

(a) The terms of an order respecting maintenance or support may be modified upon a showing of one or more of the following, any of which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair: .... (8) upon the emancipation of the child, as provided in subdivision 5.

Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a).

We have interpreted subdivision 2(a) to allow modification of a child-support order "upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that makes the order ‘unreasonable and unfair.’ " Rose v. Rose , 765 N.W.2d 142, 145 (Minn. App. 2009) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) ). We have also explained that subdivision 2(a) "lists eight types of changes that can qualify for modification." Id. ; see also Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(b) ("It is presumed that there has been a substantial change in circumstances under paragraph (a)" if certain conditions apply).

Father's argument focuses on subdivision 5, which is titled "Automatic termination of support." Id. , subd. 5. Subdivision 5 has three subparts that discuss what happens to a child-support obligation when a child becomes emancipated. Id. Subdivision 5(a) provides that child support "terminates automatically" when the obligation is "in a specific amount per child" and a child emancipates:

(a) Unless a court order provides otherwise, a child support obligation in a specific amount per child terminates automatically and without any action by the obligor to reduce, modify, or terminate the order upon the emancipation of the child as provided under section 518A.26, subdivision 5.

Id. , subd. 5(a). Father does not contend subdivision 5(a) applies to his modification motion. Although the parties do not discuss subdivision 5(a) in detail, our review of the stipulated judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage shows that father's support obligation was not in a specific amount per child, and therefore no part of that obligation automatically terminated when the oldest child emancipated.

Subdivision 5(b) provides that when subdivision 5(a) does not apply, child support "continues in the full amount" until emancipation of the "last child for whose benefit the order was made." Id. , subd. 5(b). The general rules for termination of support recited in subdivisions 5(a) and 5(b) do not apply if the court directs otherwise. See id. , subd. 5(a) (stating a support obligation set in a per-child amount "terminates automatically" upon emancipation of a child "[u]nless a court order provides otherwise"), subd. 5(b) (stating a support obligation not set in a per-child amount continues in the full amount of the obligation until emancipation of the youngest child "or until further order of the court").

Subdivision 5(c) authorizes a motion to modify child support based on emancipation of one child and states how the support amount is determined:

(c) The obligor may request a modification of the obligor's child support order upon the emancipation of a child if there are still minor children under the order. The child support obligation shall be determined based on the income of the parties at the time the modification is sought.

Id. , subd. 5(c). Father argues subdivision 5 "sets forth the standard for modification" based on emancipation of a child and the district court erred by ignoring "the clear language of" subdivision 5(c), which "does not reference the substantial change of circumstance standard or the unreasonable and unfair standard." Mother argues father's argument is "flawed" because "emancipation is part of subdivision 2(a) of [section] 518A.39, and [subdivision 5] is not its own stand-alone basis for modification." Thus, this appeal asks us to interpret relevant provisions of Minn. Stat. § 518A.39.

Appellate courts "review...