In re Marriage of Kossack

1

In re the Marriage of: Beverly Denise Kossack, petitioner, Appellant, v. Kenneth Joseph Kossack, Respondent.

No. A22-0636

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 10, 2023

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-FA-10-4315

Julie K. Seymour, Laura June, Seymour Family Law, Lakeville Minnesota (for appellant)

Susan A. Daudelin, Joani C. Moberg, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Smith Tracy, M., Judge; and Bryan, Judge.

JESSON, JUDGE

After over 21 years of marriage and three children together, appellant Beverly Denise Kossack and respondent Kenneth Joseph Kossack's marriage was dissolved by the district court in 2012 through a stipulated judgment. Nearly ten years later, the district court granted Kenneth's request to modify his spousal-maintenance obligation, due to Beverly's increased income, and it made the modification retroactive to August 2020. It also amended Beverly and Kenneth's 2012 dissolution decree to include a conclusion of law allocating the children's uninsured and unreimbursed medical expenses. Beverly appeals.

Beverly argues that the district court abused its discretion by reducing Kenneth's spousal-maintenance obligation and by retroactively applying that modification to his July 2020 motion because the motion did not include a hearing date. Further, Beverly contends that the district court erred by amending the 2012 dissolution decree to include a conclusion of law on the disbursement of the children's uninsured and unreimbursed medical expenses. Because Kenneth's reduced spousal-maintenance obligation is reasonable, given Beverly's nearly doubled income, and Kenneth's July 2020 motion was properly pending with the district court, the court acted within its discretion by reducing the spousal-maintenance award and making it retroactive to August 2020. And because there was a clerical error in the 2012 dissolution decree when a finding of fact did not have an accompanying conclusion of law, the district court did not err by amending the decree to fill that gap. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

In fall 2012, Beverly and Kenneth's marriage was dissolved pursuant to a stipulated judgment. We call this judgment the 2012 dissolution decree. In relevant part, the decree's finding of facts stated that Kenneth's salary was $185,000 annually with an average annual bonus of $40,000. The district court then calculated Kenneth's monthly income at $16,250. Beverly's part-time salary was listed as $30,000 annually, and the court determined her monthly income to be $2,500. Based on their respective incomes, the district court awarded Beverly spousal maintenance of $4,300 monthly along with 50% of Kenneth's annual bonus, which was approximately an additional $1,667 monthly. And it determined that Kenneth's child-support obligation was $1,536 monthly, which would decrease to $1,060 at the emancipation of one child and terminate altogether at the emancipation of both children.^[1] Additionally, the decree found that "[b]asic child support and reimbursement of the uninsured and unreimbursed medical and dental costs will be . . . established pursuant to the Minnesota Child Support Guidelines Calculator." But the district court did not make any conclusions of law as to what Kenneth and Beverly's obligations were for these uninsured and unreimbursed medical costs.

In the eight years following the dissolution decree, Beverly began working full-time and Kenneth withheld some money from his spousal-maintenance and child-support payments by making deductions for various expenses, such as the children's medical costs. Additionally, Kenneth's spousal-maintenance obligation was increased in 2019 to about $4,770, an approximately 10.9% increase, as the result of a cost-of-living adjustment. But Kenneth's child-support obligation terminated in 2019 when Beverly and Kenneth's youngest child emancipated. All these events culminated in a series of motions by Kenneth and Beverly to the district court.

Spousal Maintenance

In July 2020, Kenneth filed a motion to terminate or modify his spousal-maintenance obligation. Kenneth explained that his request for a modified or terminated spousal-maintenance obligation was due to Beverly's increase in annual income, which had "almost doubled" since the 2012 dissolution decree. Subsequently, Beverly filed a motion to order Kenneth to pay about $26,868 in withheld spousal-maintenance and child-support payments.

Retroactivity of Spousal-Maintenance Modification

Kenneth's July 2020 motion did not include a date for a motion hearing. But in October 2020, Kenneth received a date for a motion hearing and amended his initial motion to include the scheduled hearing date.

The district court held a hearing on both motions. And in March 2021, the district court ordered Beverly and Kenneth to participate in mediation to resolve their respective requests for modification or termination of the spousal-maintenance award and reimbursement of unpaid spousal-maintenance and child-support payments. The district court also noted that Kenneth's July 2020 motion was properly pending, even though it originally did not include a hearing date, because the COVID-19 pandemic court policies allowed a shell motion until court staff could schedule a hearing on that motion.

The parties attended mediation. It was unsuccessful. Accordingly, Beverly and Kenneth renewed their respective requests for reimbursement and modification or termination of the spousal-maintenance award.

Amendment to the 2012 Dissolution Decree

Kenneth also requested that the district court amend the 2012 dissolution decree to correct a clerical error-a finding of fact relating to the allocation of the uninsured and unreimbursed medical expenses of their children was missing a conclusion of law that would explain the precise allocation of those expenses between Beverly and himself.

District Court's Order

In March 2022, the district court modified the spousal-maintenance award, concluding that Kenneth's new spousal-maintenance obligation is $3,900 per month, with 0% of his annual bonus income, which was made retroactive to August 2020, due to Kenneth's properly filed July 2020 motion. Further, it found that Kenneth had been overpaying his obligation since the retroactive date and permitted Kenneth to deduct that overpayment from his spousal-maintenance payments until it is reconciled. The district court also concluded that the omission of a conclusion of law in the 2012 dissolution decree was a clerical error and amended the dissolution to include a conclusion of law that allocated the uninsured and unreimbursed medical costs for the children between Kenneth and Beverly as 64% to Kenneth and 36% to Beverly.

Beverly appeals.

DECISION

I. The district court acted within its discretion by reducing Kenneth's spousal-maintenance obligation.

Beverly argues that the district court abused its discretion in reducing Kenneth's spousal-maintenance obligation because it miscalculated her budget at the time of divorce.

Specifically, Beverly maintains that the district court arrived at a number that was not supported by the adopted formula to determine her budget, and it failed to consider her tax obligations and the child-support payments when calculating her monthly budget.^[2]

In reviewing the district court's grant of a modification of spousal maintenance, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Madden v. Madden, 923 N.W.2d 688, 696 (Minn.App. 2019). "A district court abuses its discretion in making such a decision if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record." Id. We do not set aside a district court's determination of income for spousal-maintenance purposes unless it is clearly erroneous. See Sinda v. Sinda, 949 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Minn.App. 2020) (holding that findings of fact are clearly erroneous when they are manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole).

Here, the district court acted within its discretion by modifying the spousal-maintenance award. As an initial consideration, a district court may only modify spousal maintenance when there is a substantial change of circumstances since the last time maintenance was modified or, if it has not been modified, since the maintenance was originally set. Youker v. Youker, 661 N.W.2d 266, 269 (Minn.App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003). A substantial change of circumstance justifying modification includes (1) "substantially increased or decreased gross income of an . . . obligee" that (2) makes the existing spousal-maintenance award unreasonable or unfair. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a)(1) (2022). In 2012, Beverly's part-time income was $30,000 annually. But as of 2020, Beverly's full-time income was approximately $60,000 annually. The record supports the district court's ruling that there was a substantial change in circumstances from Beverly's-the obligee's-doubled gross income since the 2012 dissolution decree.^[3]

Because there was a substantial change in circumstances that made the existing spousal-maintenance award unreasonable and unfair we turn to whether the district court abused its discretion in its modification of the spousal-maintenance award to $3,900 with none of Kenneth's annual bonus, a reduction from the ordered $4,300 in 2012-adjusted to about $4,770 in 2019-with 50% of Kenneth's annual bonus. In determining the amount of the modified spousal-maintenance award, the district court is to consider all eight...