Hiniker v. Hiniker

In re the Marriage of:Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, v. Robert Lee Hiniker, Appellant.

A16-1716

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

February 4, 2019

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Smith, John, Judge^*

Ramsey County District Court

File No. 62-F1-06-001882

Victoria M.B. Taylor, Crossroads Legal Services, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Brian L. Sobol, McGrann Shea Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SMITH, JOHN, Judge

We reverse and remand the district court's award of permanent spousal maintenance to wife and the statutory interest on a marital lien; and reverse the monetary judgment for the value of certain personal property because the record does not support these awards. We affirm the district court's orders apportioning debt, denying the husband's motion to reopen the dissolution judgment, and awarding wife conduct-based attorney fees and denying husband's motion for attorney fees because the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to these orders.

FACTS

The district court dissolved the marriage of appellant-husband Robert Lee Hiniker and respondent-wife Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris pursuant to an amended judgment and decree on August 26, 2008.

The judgment and decree addressed wife's request for an award of spousal maintenance. Wife was employed as a waitress during the marriage, but was unemployed at the time of the divorce and did not have an income. The district court found that wife was voluntarily unemployed and capable of earning a gross monthly income of $1,725. Husband was employed as a chef and a hardwood floor sander and installer. Husband was self-employed for three years before the divorce and worked with wife's brother. Husband and wife's brother ceased operating their business in December 2007, and husband continued to work in the flooring industry. The district court found that husband was voluntarily underemployed and had the experience and capacity to earn $40,000 per year. Based upon the parties' financial circumstances, the district court found that husband did not have the ability to pay spousal maintenance and meet his own needs. The district court therefore reserved the issue of spousal maintenance based upon its finding that husband lacked the ability to pay spousal maintenance.

The parties owned a home in Roseville. Husband claimed a non-marital interest in the homestead, but the court found that he failed to trace his non-marital interest by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The court found that husband lacked the ability to satisfy a lien on the property at the time of the divorce without jeopardizing the minor child's homestead. The court noted that the child was 14 years old at the time of the divorce, and that the lien would be satisfied "within a reasonable period of time." The court awarded all of the parties' right, title, interest, and equity in the homestead to husband. The homestead award was subject to a lien in favor of wife, which was to come due "at such time as the homestead is sold, refinanced, or the parties' minor child is emancipated, whichever shall occur first." Wife was awarded a marital lien against the real property, representing her interest in that real property, in the amount of $56,576. A Summary Real Estate Disposition Judgment was entered on March 5, 2009. The minor child was born in 1993 and reached the age of majority in 2011, although it is not clear from the record when he became emancipated.

The court also addressed the personal property and debts of the parties. The court awarded each party his or her personal property, except for certain items set forth in a list signed by the parties. The court found that the parties accumulated debts and obligations during their marriage, including the following credit card balances: $10,800 on BOA Visa, $23,000 on AAA Visa, and $6,500 on AT&T. The court held that husband and wife were equally liable for one-half of the total sum of $40,300.

In 2009, wife moved for judgment against husband for $13,650, asserting that husband failed to pay his share of the marital debt. The district court denied the request on June 1, 2009, noting that:

[t]he BOA and AAA Visa accounts are in [wife's] name only. The AT&T debt is in [husband's] name only. [Wife] is paying on the two Visa accounts but [husband] is not contributing at all. If [husband] is solely responsible for the AT&T debt, then he should pay at least $13,650 on the Visa accounts.

However, the court held that there was "insufficient evidence to conclude that [wife] has made any or all of the payments due on these accounts. [Husband] is correct that the Court cannot grant a judgment of $13,650 as a matter of law."

In March 2016, wife moved to enforce and satisfy the terms of the judgment and decree. Wife sought (1) judgment of $56,576 plus interest, (2) the release of personal property in husband's possession, (3) an award of $3,500 a month in spousal maintenance, and (4) conduct-based attorney fees. Husband filed a responsive motion seeking to reopen the property division of the judgment and decree and asking for an attorney-fee award. The court issued an order on August 31, 2016, denying husband's request to reopen the property division and partially granting wife's requested relief. Specifically, the district court granted wife's motion to order husband to satisfy the lien on the marital homestead, partially granted wife's motion for a money judgment for the value of personal property awarded to her in the judgment and decree, and ordered husband to pay wife spousal maintenance and attorney fees.

With respect to enforcement of the marital lien, the district court determined that it was fair and equitable for husband to immediately refinance the home or otherwise fully satisfy the amount owed to wife in the amount of $56,576, plus ten percent per annum statutory interest from October 30, 2011—the date the child turned eighteen—until satisfaction of the lien. The court also awarded permanent spousal maintenance to wife in the amount of $2,500 per month. The court ordered husband to satisfy the parties' consumer debt, including $5,400 to BOA Visa, $11,500 to AAA Visa, and $3,250 to AT&T.

Husband appealed the August 31, 2016 entry of judgment regarding the marital lien, the award of spousal maintenance, and the denial of his request to reopen the June 2008 property division. We questioned whether the August 31, 2016 order was appealable, as the district court administrator's register of actions did not reflect entry of judgment. On November 9, 2016, the district court filed Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment, and Judgment, ordering that judgment be entered immediately. We subsequently allowed the appeal to proceed and construed the appeal as taken from the August 31, 2016 order and the judgment entered November 9, 2016. Husband appeals.

DECISION

I. The District Court's Spousal-Maintenance Award Is Reversed and Remanded.

Husband challenges the district court's permanent spousal-maintenance award of $2,500 per month to wife. We review a district court's spousal-maintenance award for an abuse of discretion. Erlandson v. Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Minn. 1982). A district court abuses its discretion when its resolution of the matter is "against logic and the facts on record." Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984). We review a district court's factual findings regarding spousal maintenance for clear error. Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Minn. App. 2009). "Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). In determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, we view the record in the light most favorable to the district court's findings. Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).

Spousal maintenance is "an award made in a dissolution . . . proceeding of payments from the future income or earnings of one spouse for the support and maintenance of the other." Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3a (2018). A district court may award spousal maintenance if it finds that the party seeking maintenance "lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to the spouse, to provide for [the] reasonable needs of the spouse" or "is unable to provide adequate self-support . . . through appropriate employment." Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1(a), (b) (2018); Lyon v. Lyon, 439 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. 1989) (noting that "[m]aintenance depends on a showing of need"). The district court considers "all relevant factors" in arriving at a spousal-maintenance award, including (1) "the financial resources of the party seeking maintenance" and that party's ability to meet his or her needs independently; (2) the time required for the party seeking maintenance to acquire sufficient education or training to find appropriate employment; (3) the marital standard of living; (4) the length of the marriage and, "in the case of a homemaker, the length of absence from employment and the extent to which any education, skills, or experience have become outmoded and earning capacity has become permanently diminished"; (5) the loss of employment opportunities and benefits foregone by the party seeking maintenance; (6) the age and health of the party seeking maintenance; (7) the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his or her own needs while meeting the needs of the spouse requesting maintenance; and (8) the contribution of each party to the acquisition and preservation of the marital...