Gronvall v. Gronvall

In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Ann Gronvall, petitioner, Respondent, v. Kalmar Gene Gronvall, Appellant.

A17-0185

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

December 11, 2017

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

Affirmed

Bratvold, Judge

Goodhue County District Court

File No. 25-FA-06-3979

Andrea Derby Workman, Henschel Moberg Goff, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Bruce E. Scott, Bruce Scott Law Firm, New Prague, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

BRATVOLD, Judge

Appellant-husband challenges the district court's denial of his motion to terminate his spousal-maintenance obligation and to reduce garnishments. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellant failed to show a substantial change in circumstances rendering the current order unreasonable and unfair, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Kalmar Gronvall (husband) and respondent Kathleen Gronvall (wife) were married in 1966. Husband and wife had nine children together. During their marriage, wife was a stay-at-home mother. Husband had several occupations throughout the marriage, but for the last "few years" of their marriage, husband worked as a gold-broker earning "good money."

Husband and wife separated in 2005. At the time of their separation, only one of their nine children, D.G., born in 1991, was a minor. During the separation, wife and D.G. received public assistance in the form of cash supplements, groceries, and government-subsidized housing and health care. Goodhue County initiated a child support proceeding. In August 2006, an order for support directed husband to pay $598 per month as of May 1, 2006, for ongoing child support, $50 per month for medical/dental/health expenses, and $129.60 per month toward reimbursement of past support. In April 2007, the district court filed an order for temporary relief in the parties' then pending dissolution proceeding. That temporary order awarded attorney fees to wife and required husband to pay child support and spousal maintenance to wife.

On September 14, 2007, the district court entered a final judgment and decree in the dissolution proceeding. The district court found that husband had assets that he could "divert" to wife, his "testimony regarding financial hardship was not credible," and he earned "thousands of dollars in net revenue every month." The district court alsodetermined that, at the time of trial, husband had "not paid any child support, spousal maintenance or attorney fees to [wife]." (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, the court found that it was "impossible" to determine husband's exact income because husband had provided inaccurate and false information to the court. After examining husband's exhibits and bank records, the court found that his "gross revenue has been at least $12,693 per month in 2007 based on his own ledger for the first five months of 2007." The court also found that husband's reasonable business expenses were around $1,000 per month and his personal expenses were around $1,605 per month. The court concluded that husband "ha[d] the ability to meet his own needs while meeting those of [wife]."

In the final decree, the district court directed husband to pay child support of $1,439 per month and permanent spousal maintenance of $358 per month. In making its maintenance determination, the court found that wife worked full-time as a paraprofessional and teacher, earning $12.55 per hour as a paraprofessional and $22.00 per hour as a teacher. The court determined that wife's monthly expenses totaled $3,031.33. Even with child support payments, wife had a budget deficit, and therefore, the court found that she needed $358 in spousal maintenance each month to meet her reasonable needs and would continue to need maintenance even after child support ended.

After judgment was entered, husband did not appeal. Husband paid neither spousal maintenance nor child support, and wife obtained several monetary judgments against husband.¹

On February 13, 2013, a federal jury convicted husband of three counts of tax evasion. Husband failed to pay "federal income taxes on approximately $1.3 million in net income earned during 2006 through 2008 from his business buying and selling gold and silver coins." United States v. Gronvall, 550 F. App'x 331, 331 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming conviction). Husband was sentenced to 48 months in prison.

On July 20, 2016, husband filed a motion to terminate his spousal-maintenance obligation and reduce the garnishments, arguing that the circumstances of both parties had changed substantially since the district court entered its judgment in 2007.² Both sides submitted affidavits, along with some exhibits, focused on whether circumstances had substantially changed.

Husband's income and expenses

Husband's affidavit averred the following: he is 72 years old, retired, and lives "solely" on social security. He was released from prison in May 2016, and placed on probation for three years. Before his release, husband applied for and was awarded socialsecurity retirement benefits. Husband submitted his social security notice deeming him eligible for benefits, commencing July 2015, in the amount of $2,162 each month. Husband also receives $194 each month in food assistance.

Starting June 2016, the Minnesota Child Support Center began garnishing 65% of husband's monthly income, which is $1,405 each month. Husband also attested that the IRS garnishes $113 each month. Additionally, husband's terms of supervised release state that he owes the IRS restitution in the total amount of $433,450, of which he must pay $50 each month or 10% of his "net earnings," "whichever is greater."

Husband attested that, after restitution, he had "less than $500 to pay all the rest of my monthly expenses." Husband's affidavit included a monthly budget of "reasonable expenses," including restitution to the IRS and Bureau of Prisons, and the budget totals $2,156, nearly the exact amount of his social-security benefit. Husband's affidavit provided no additional information on how he arrived at this budget, nor did he attach any supporting documentation.

Wife's income

Wife's affidavit averred the following: she is 72 years old and employed full time as a special-education teacher. After the dissolution, wife received additional education and obtained her teaching license. Wife stated that their youngest child, D.H., emancipated on September 11, 2009. Wife also averred that she was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2016 and underwent daily radiation treatments until November 2016. Wifeadditionally attested that she maintained full-time employment throughout her cancer treatment, as well as medical treatment for other afflictions in 2009 and 2012.

Husband's motion

Husband moved the district court to terminate spousal maintenance because wife's financial circumstances are "at least as good as" his circumstances. Husband's affidavit averred that he has "no present or future income earning potential."

Wife responded that husband had not offered any evidence to support his claim that he is "retired." Wife argued that husband "appear[ed] to base his 'change in circumstances' solely on his choice to not obtain employment." Wife's affidavit also attested that husband has never voluntarily paid any of his maintenance or support obligations. Wife asked the court to reject husband's claimed "reasonable expenses" of $2,156 each month because he provided "no evidence" to establish his expenses. Specifically, wife pointed out that, when asked to document his expenses in response to discovery requests by wife, husband objected, saying the "question is not clear." Husband did not provide documentation, although he did produce bank statements from February to August 2016.

Wife submitted husband's bank statements to the court and noted the following: (1) the bank statements do not reflect payments for food, rent, or utilities, even though husband stated in answers to interrogatories that this is his sole bank account; and (2) the bank statements indicate that husband's social security benefit is automatically deposited and then withdrawn each month. Moreover, wife noted that husband received his first social security payment on March 1, 2016, as a lump sum of approximately $17,000 for the previous eight months, but this lump-sum payment was withdrawn the next day.Similarly, wife noted that husband made other substantial large withdrawals in May and June 2016.

At the motion hearing, husband expanded on the changed circumstances alleged in his affidavit. Husband's attorney argued that husband has a medical condition, cellulitis, that has made it difficult for him to stand for "too long" and has "limited [] what he can do." Counsel also argued that husband's felon status has restricted his ability to find a job. Husband did not offer evidence in support of either assertion.

On December 7, 2016, the district court filed its order denying husband's motion. The district court determined that husband had not proven a substantial change in circumstances or that the current order was unreasonable and unfair. The district court concluded that garnishment "is as provided for by law." Finally, the district court denied wife's motion for attorney fees.

Husband appeals. Before oral argument, this court granted in part and denied in part wife's motion to strike portions of husband's brief that alleged matters outside the record.

DECISION

I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband's motion to terminate spousal maintenance.

On appeal, husband argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to terminate his spousal maintenance obligation. A district court may modify an award of spousal maintenance if there has been a substantial change in circumstances that makes the existing award unreasonable...