Fanning v. Fanning

• Decision Date: 01 August 2022
• Docket Number: A21-0984
• Parties: In re the Marriage of: Johnay Marie Fanning, n/k/a Johnay Marie Frandsen, petitioner, Respondent, v. Quentin Michael Fanning, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

In re the Marriage of: Johnay Marie Fanning, n/k/a Johnay Marie Frandsen, petitioner, Respondent,
v.
Quentin Michael Fanning, Appellant.

No. A21-0984

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

August 1, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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

Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-FA-19-3631

Kathryn M. Lammers, Heimerl &Lammers, LLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota (for respondent)

Ryan J. Briese, Kristine J. Zajac, Zajac Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Jesson, Judge.

SEGAL, Chief Judge

In this child-support dispute, appellant-father argues that the district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518A.42 (2020) when determining his child-support obligation and erred in determining respondent-mother's income based on allegedly material

1

misrepresentations by mother about the financial benefit she received from a trust. Because we conclude that the district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518A.42 when it ordered father to pay the minimum basic child-support amount in subdivision 2(a)(2) of that statute, we reverse in part and remand. But because we discern no clear error in the district court's findings related to whether payments mother received from a trust should be included in mother's income for purposes of child support, we affirm on that issue.

FACTS

Appellant-father Quentin Michael Fanning and respondent-mother Johnay Marie Frandsen were married in December 2005 and have three minor children. In March 2020, the parties' marriage was dissolved pursuant to a stipulated judgment and decree that reserved the issues of custody, parenting time, and child support for future determination. Following a trial, the district court awarded the parties joint legal and joint physical custody of the children with equal parenting time. But the district court could not resolve the issue of child support based on the record provided by the parties. The custody order noted that the district court "ha[d] significant concerns about the parties' testimony concerning their incomes-or their financial positions, generally." Based on "the parties' lack of credibility about their financial positions," the district court determined that it "lack[ed] a sufficient factual basis to make meaningful findings on income" and referred the matter to the expedited process for a decision by a child-support magistrate (CSM) pursuant to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 353.02, subd. 2.

In March 2021, the CSM held a hearing. Mother testified that she was employed by her father's business, generally worked one day a week, and earned $1,000 per month

2

from that employment. She was also a beneficiary, along with others, of a trust established by her grandfather. Between 2015 and 2019, mother received amounts from the trust ranging between $30,000 to $41,000 each year, except in 2017 when she received approximately $90,000. Additionally, the trust paid for the children's private school tuition in 2020. Mother acknowledged, however, that she does not "have any control over the trustee's decision making" and had not yet received any disbursements in 2021.

Father was not employed at the time of the hearing. He testified that he had applied for various jobs and was attending college classes. He also testified that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury but, when asked if he anticipated the injury would impact his employment prospects, he stated that he had not "been able to gauge" the impact of the injury and "without actually being in [his] next career" he could not "clearly answer that." In addition, father is also a trustee and one of the beneficiaries of a trust established by his family, with assets valued at a total of over $4 million. According to an affidavit submitted by father, he expects to receive "$9,000 per year ongoing" from that trust.

The CSM filed an order establishing child support. The CSM found that mother earned $1,000 per month from her part-time employment and that she did not provide "any claim of a disability that would prevent her from working full-time." The CSM therefore imputed additional income to mother up to full-time and found her monthly parental income for determining child support (PICS) to be $2,397. The CSM declined to include any financial benefit mother received from her family trust in mother's PICS because the CSM found the benefit to be "clearly in the nature of a gift."

3

The CSM found that father was not currently employed, but determined that it was appropriate to impute full-time income to him "at minimum wage," or $1,747 per month. The CSM also added $750 to father's monthly income based on father's expectation that he would receive $9,000 per year from his family trust, resulting in a finding that father's monthly PICS was $2,497.

The CSM ordered father to pay $75 per month, the basic minimum child-support amount under Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 2 (the minimum support amount), and $1,275 in past child support.^[1] Father moved the district court to review the CSM's decision, arguing that the CSM misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518A.42 when calculating father's childsupport obligation, and that mother "provided false statements under oath and in discovery responses regarding the income she has received from her family trust, making the final determination of her income unreliable." The district court denied father's motion for review and affirmed the decision of the CSM. Father now appeals.

DECISION

I. The district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518A.42 when calculating father's child-support obligation.

Father argues that the district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518A.42 when it ordered him to pay the minimum support amount under that statute. As set out below, the parties do not dispute the facts relevant to this issue. Appellate courts review de novo a

4

district court's construction of a statute. Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Minn. 2013).

There is "a rebuttable presumption that a child support order should not exceed the obligor's ability to pay." Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 1(a). An obligor's "ability to pay" is calculated under Minn. Stat. § 518A.42. Id. If the obligor's "income available for support . . . is equal to or greater than the obligor's support obligation calculated under section 518A.34, the court shall order child support under section 518A.34." Id., subd. 1(b). But if the obligor's income available for support "is equal to or less than the minimum support amount under subdivision 2 or if the obligor's gross income is less than 120 percent of the federal poverty guidelines for one person, the minimum support amount under subdivision 2 applies." Id., subd. 1(d).

The parties here agree that father's "income available for support" is $1,209 per month, and that father is the child-support obligor. The parties also agree that, because the parties have equal parenting time, father's child-support obligation as calculated under Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b), (f) (2020), would be $15 per month.

Finally, the parties agree that neither of the prerequisites set out in Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 1(d), for applying the minimum support amount are satisfied here: (1) father's "income available for support" is neither equal to nor less than the $75 minimum basic support amount in subdivision 2 for three children, and (2) father's gross income is not less than 120% of the federal poverty guidelines for one person. Despite

5

this, the district court ordered father to pay $75 per month, the minimum support amount for three joint children as set out in Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 2(a)(2).^[2]

Father argues that, under the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 1(b), the district court erred in its conclusion that the minimum support amount applied to him. Father argues that, instead, because his income available for support is "greater than the obligor's support obligation calculated under section 518A.34," the statute dictates that "the court shall order child support under section 518A.34," which in this case is $15 per month. Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 1(b) (emphasis added).

If, as appears to be the case here, the...