Holmberg v. Holmberg

• Decision Date: 12 June 1998
• Docket Number: Nos. C7-97-926,C8-97-1132 and C8-98-33,KALIS-FULLER,C7-97-1512,s. C7-97-926
• Citation: 578 N.W.2d 817
• Parties: In re the Marriage of Sandra Lee HOLMBERG, petitioner, Appellant, v. Ronald Gerald HOLMBERG, Respondent. Denise M., n/k/a Denise M. Kalis, petitioner, Respondent, v. Lee V. FULLER, Appellant. In re the Marriage of Kristi Sue CARLSON, petitioner, Respondent, v. Steven Alan CARLSON, Appellant, Dakota County, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 817

578 N.W.2d 817

In re the Marriage of Sandra Lee HOLMBERG, petitioner, Appellant, v. Ronald Gerald HOLMBERG, Respondent.

Denise M. KALIS-FULLER, n/k/a Denise M. Kalis, petitioner, Respondent, v. Lee V. FULLER, Appellant.

In re the Marriage of Kristi Sue CARLSON, petitioner, Respondent, v. Steven Alan CARLSON, Appellant, Dakota County, Respondent.

Nos. C7-97-926, C7-97-1512, C8-97-1132 and C8-98-33.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

June 12, 1998.

Review Granted Aug. 18, 1998.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The administrative child support process governed by Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 (1996) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers required by Minn. Const. art. III, § 1.

2. In determining whether a lien on a homestead created by an ambiguous provision in a dissolution judgment may be modified, the district court must determine whether the lien is part of the division of property or in the nature of child support. A lien in the nature of child support may be modified if changed circumstances render it unreasonable and unfair.

3. A disabled child support obligor is entitled to a credit for social security disability benefits paid on behalf of a child for whom the obligor has a duty of support. Haynes v. Haynes, 343 N.W.2d 679 (Minn.App.1984), and other contrary cases are overruled.

Lawrence H. Crosby, St. Paul, for appellant Sandra Holmberg.

Alexandra B. Klass, A. Minni Alexander, Dorsey & Whitney, L.L.P., Minneapolis, for respondent Ronald Holmberg.

Richard Hermes, Buffalo, for respondent Holmberg children.

Wyman A. Nelson, Wright County Attorney, Terry D. Fraizer, Assistant Wright County Attorney, Buffalo, for respondent Wright County.

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, Kim Buechel Mesun, Assistant Attorney General, intervenor respondent attorney general.

Lawrence H. Crosby, N., St. Paul, for appellant Lee Fuller.

Denise M. Kalis, St. Paul, respondent pro se.

Susan E. Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Theresa Walton, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, for respondent Ramsey County.

Elizabeth Anderson Holt, Holt and Anderson, Burnsville, for respondent Kristi Carlson.

James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Tonya D. Freeman, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent Dakota County.

Mark A. Olson, Olson Law Office, Burnsville, for appellant Steven Carlson.

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, Jin-Ho Chung, Assistant Attorney General, intervenor attorney general.

Considered and decided by TOUSSAINT, C.J., and HUSPENI, RANDALL, KLAPHAKE, WILLIS, SHUMAKER and MANSUR, J. ^*

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

These consolidated cases are considered by an expanded panel of judges from this court. Each appeal is from a post-judgment child support order issued by an administrative law judge (ALJ) and raises constitutional challenges to the administrative child support process governed by Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 (1996). We address the separation of powers issue and conclude that the administrative child support process constitutes an impermissible transfer of judicial power to the executive branch, in violation of the separation of powers required by Minn. Const. art. III, § 1. We therefore reverse each of the support orders and remand for consideration by the district court.

In Holmberg v. Holmberg (C7-97-926), appellant Sandra Holmberg challenges a district court's post-judgment order delaying her ability to collect on her homestead lien until the children are emancipated. Because the district court did not err in concluding the lien was in the nature of child support and can be modified, but failed to determine whether Ronald Holmberg made a good faith effort to pay the lien, we remand on this issue.

In Kalis-Fuller v. Fuller (C8-97-1132 & C9-98-33), appellant Lee Fuller requests that this court overrule Marriage of Haynes, 343 N.W.2d 679 (Minn.App.1984), and credit disabled child support obligors for social security benefits paid on behalf of children for whom they have a support obligation. We take the opportunity afforded by this expanded panel to overrule Haynes, and we remand for recalculation of Lee Fuller's support obligation.

In Carlson v. Carlson (C7-97-1512), appellant Steve Carlson challenges an ALJ's amended order denying his motion for reduced support. Because we conclude the administrative child support process is unconstitutional, we need not address Steve Carlson's non-constitutional claims, which he raises only in the alternative.

FACTS ¹

In 1987, the legislature established a pilot project in Dakota County to address child and medical support issues and certain maintenance obligations in an administrative process if the county represented a party or was a party to the proceedings. 1987 Minn. Laws ch. 403, art. 3, § 80 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 10 (Supp.1987)). The legislature approved a restructured administrative child support process in 1994, and

expanded the process to all counties designated by the commissioner of human services to use the new contested hearing process. 1994 Minn. Laws ch. 630, art. 10, §§ 1-4 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 (1994)). In 1995, the process was again expanded to include parentage orders when custody and visitation are uncontested. 1995 Minn. Laws ch. 257, art. 5, § 1. These appeals involve the administrative child support process as it existed prior to 1997. ²

ISSUES

I. Does the administrative child support process governed by Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 (1996) violate the separation of powers required by Minn. Const. art. III, § 1?

II. Did the district court err by modifying Sandra Holmberg's homestead lien?

III. Should a disabled child support obligor be credited for social security disability benefits paid on behalf of the child for whom the support obligation is owed?

ANALYSIS

I.

A. Propriety of Addressing Constitutional Claims

Appellants did not challenge the constitutionality of the administrative child support process during the administrative proceedings or in the district court. Generally, an appellate court will consider constitutional issues only if raised and litigated before the district court. Egeland v. State, 408 N.W.2d 848, 852 (Minn.1987). However, an administrative agency lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues because those questions are within the exclusive province of the judicial branch. See Neeland v. Clearwater Mem. Hosp., 257 N.W.2d 366, 368 (Minn.1977). Although precluded from raising their constitutional claims in the administrative proceedings, appellants might have "commenc[ed] an action or [brought] a motion" ³ in district court to raise any "issues outside the jurisdiction of the administrative process." Minn.Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 1(b) (1996).

Dismissal of these constitutional claims would only delay the processing of child support cases and perpetuate uncertainty for parents and children throughout the state. Moreover, the separation of powers issue, in particular, would not necessarily benefit from development of a district court record or additional briefing. See Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.04 (appellate court may address any issue as justice requires); In re Jury Panel for Dakota County, 276 Minn. 503, 507, 150 N.W.2d 863, 866 (1967) (addressing issue not properly before court because "clear-cut[,]" "fully briefed and argued," presented on complete record, and "[n]o useful purpose would be served" by not addressing issue). Therefore, we will address the separation of powers issue.

B. Merits of Separation of Powers Claim

The powers of government are divided among the branches of the government, and no member of one branch is allowed the power of any other branch "except in the instances expressly provided" in the Minnesota Constitution. Minn. Const. art. III, § 1. The constitution gives district courts original jurisdiction in all "civil" cases, and dissolution proceedings are civil actions. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 3; see Christenson v. Christenson, 281 Minn. 507, 521-24, 162 N.W.2d 194, 203-04 (1968) (discovery rules and privilege against self-incrimination available in divorce action, as in any other civil action). The issue here is whether the statute governing the administrative child support

process constitutes an impermissible invasion of the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Although a statute is presumed constitutional, we will declare it unconstitutional "when absolutely necessary." Estate of Jones by Blume v. Kvamme, 529 N.W.2d 335, 337 (Minn.1995)

By adopting Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 in 1994, the Minnesota legislature responded to the large number of children receiving child support services and federal developments encouraging efficient establishments and collection of child support obligations. See 42 U.S.C. (Supp. V 1983) (addressing establishment and collection of child support); 45 C.F.R. § 303.101 (1993) (same). To address these concerns, the legislature delegated to non-judge members of the executive branch broad authority over matters traditionally determined by the judicial branch. ⁴

Under this statute, when the public authority is a party or is providing services to a party, the administrative child support process is the forum for actions "to obtain, modify, and enforce" orders involving child and medical support, or modification of spousal maintenance if combined with a child support proceeding. Minn.Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 1(a), (b). A county may unilaterally expand the process to include contempt motions and actions to establish parentage. Id., subd. 1(b). Although the statute presumes that all counties will participate, if the commissioner of human services does not "designate" a county for the process, contested hearings "shall be conducted in district court." Id., subd. 4. Thus, individual counties and the commissioner of human services effectively determine which litigants will have access to the district courts and which must pursue administrative remedies.

Once the administrative child support...