Bender v. Bernhard

• Decision Date: 09 March 2022
• Docket Number: A20-1234
• Citation: 971 N.W.2d 257
• Parties: Rebecca Ellen BENDER, Respondent, v. Peter Howard BERNHARD, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

971 N.W.2d 257

Rebecca Ellen BENDER, Respondent,

v.Peter Howard BERNHARD, Appellant.

A20-1234

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: March 9, 2022

Rebecca E. Bender, Minnetonka, Minnesota, pro se.

Michael P. Boulette, O. Joseph Balthazor, Jr., Yuka Shiotani, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

CHUTICH, Justice.

This case raises the following issues: (1) whether a party to a marriage dissolution-or child support-related case may seek relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence under Minnesota Statutes section 518.145, subdivision 2(2) (2020) if the evidence came into existence after the underlying decision from which that party seeks relief, and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in ordering the district court to consider the post-decision evidence submitted by the movant. These issues arise from marriage dissolution and child support proceedings between Rebecca Ellen Bender and Peter Bernhard. Years after their divorce, Bender moved the district court to extend Bernhard's child support payments for their special needs child beyond the child's 21st birthday. After the district court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed, Bender moved to modify the child support termination order based on "newly discovered evidence" under Minnesota Statutes section 518.145, subdivision 2(2) and Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. The district court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded.

Bernhard now seeks review of the court of appeals’ nonprecedential opinion instructing the district court to consider whether Bender presented newly discovered evidence warranting relief from a child support order. Bernhard argues that newly discovered evidence must exist at the time of an underlying decision, and because the evidence at issue postdated the district court order, it does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. He further asserts that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider its order terminating child support, and therefore the court of appeals erred when it held otherwise. Because we conclude that a district court has discretion under section 518.145 to consider, as may be just, newly discovered evidence that arises after the court's underlying decision, we also hold that the district court should have determined whether Bender's proffered evidence warranted relief under that rule. Consequently, we affirm the court of appeals’ decision remanding this case to the district court.

FACTS

Rebecca Bender and Peter Bernhard are the parents of an adult child with special needs.¹ When the parents divorced in 2004, the child, then age 5, displayed developmental delays consistent with autism. The district court ordered Bernhard to pay child support "until [the child's] emancipation or further order from the court." See Bender v. Bernhard (Bender I ), No. A19-1611, 2020 WL 3409243, at *1 (Minn. App. June 22, 2020).

The child lived with Bender after the divorce. As the child approached high school graduation, a 2016 assessment from Behavior Care Specialists, Inc. validated a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. The assessment showed that the child excelled academically but struggled socially. Shortly after this assessment, Bender requested that the district court order that child support continue beyond the child's 18th birthday. The child support magistrate found that the child was incapable of self-support, and consequently ordered Bernhard to continue paying child support until the child's 21st birthday or until further order. The trial court adopted the magistrate's order. Id.

Before turning 21, the child applied for Social Security disability benefits on June 18, 2019. Later that month, Bender moved the district court to extend child support payments beyond the adult child's 21st birthday. She contended that the adult child remained incapable of self-support, and that Minnesota Statutes section 518A.26, subdivision 5, required the district court to characterize him as a "child" entitled to continued support. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 5 (2020) (providing that an adult child may be considered a "child" and eligible for child support if the adult child is "an individual who, by reason of physical or mental condition, is incapable of self-support").

In her motion to extend child support, Bender explicitly referred to the adult child's pending Social Security disability application. She also submitted the 2016 Behavior Care Specialists assessment showing that the adult child's social skills were in the bottom 20 percent of his class. She additionally submitted a 2019 diagnostic assessment saying that the adult child showed "marked impairment in social interaction." Bernhard's child support obligations terminated in early August 2019 when the child turned 21. Later that month, the district court heard arguments on extending his child support obligations.

On September 10, 2019, the district court issued an order declining to extend child support past the adult child's 21st birthday. Referencing section 518A.26, the district court stated that this definitional section did not define "incapable of self-support," but stated that courts tend to focus on the parent's right to control the child's actions. A magistrate had previously found the adult child to be incapable of self-support in June 2017, but the district court noted that the magistrate declined to require that the determination be permanent. Rather, the district court reasoned that the law entitled it to determine the adult child's present self-sufficiency based on the evidence before it. The court specifically acknowledged that the adult child faced "certain social challenges and limitations," and needed "assistance in strengthening his abilities to live independently." The court nevertheless found that those impediments did not "rise to a level that, by reason of physical or mental condition, the child is incapable of self-support." Further reasoning that Bender had no right to control the adult child's actions, the court determined that the adult child was "capable of self-support," and it therefore declined to extend Bernhard's child support obligations.

Bender appealed the district court's decision. On May 1, 2020 (while the case was pending at the court of appeals) the Social Security Administration found the adult child to be eligible for Social Security disability payments. This determination meant that the Social Security Administration had concluded that the adult child was incapable of "substantial gainful activity." See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A).

Shortly thereafter, on June 22, 2020, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision denying continued child support. Bender I , 2020 WL 3409243, at *1. The court of appeals reasoned that a diagnosed "physical or mental condition does not necessarily mean that the individual is incapable of self-support." Id. at *3. Although the court noted that the district court record showed that the adult child faced challenges, the court also cited record evidence of the adult child's academic success and interest in pursuing a career. Id. The court of appeals acknowledged that Bender's district court evidence might have supported "another outcome," but the court ultimately decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating child support. Id.

In August of 2020, Bender moved under section 518.145 and Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 to modify the child support termination order based on "newly discovered evidence." That evidence consisted of a May 1, 2020, Social Security Administration letter informing the adult child that he was eligible for disability payments, and a report explaining the rationale for the Social Security disability determination. Bender asserted that the Social Security administration's "in-depth," 11-month "investigation and analysis" had determined that the adult child was "not capable of substantial gainful activity." She also stated that the Social Security Administration appointed her as representative payee to handle the adult child's disability payments, which she alleged proved that the adult child was "incapable" of managing the child's disability payments. Bender therefore maintained that the Social Security evidence contradicted the district court's previous determination that the adult child was "capable of self-support" under section 518A.26, subdivision 5. She consequently requested that the district court review and reverse its previous decision terminating child support.

In September of 2020, the district court denied Bender's motion to consider the proffered evidence. In so deciding, the district court noted that it was aware of the adult child's pending Social Security application when it initially declined to extend child support. The district court further explained that the information in the Social Security evidence essentially restated the information that it had considered in its initial determination. The district court therefore found that the Social Security evidence was not "new," and it consequently treated Bender's motion as a motion for reconsideration, rather than as a motion for relief because of newly discovered evidence. The court determined that granting a motion for reconsideration requires "compelling circumstances." Finding no such circumstances, the district court denied her motion.

Bender appealed a second time. Bender v. Bernhard (Bender II ), No. A20-1234, 2021 WL 1525239, at *2 (Minn. App. Apr. 14, 2021). On her second appeal, the court of appeals considered whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to reopen the child-support order to review the Social Security evidence. Id. at *3. The court of appeals focused its analysis on the district court's determination that the Social Security evidence was not "new evidence," but merely restated the information underlying the district court's...