He claims he no longer has the part-time job. But it is not clear that the ALJ considered appellant's part-time job in refusing to terminate maintenance. Further, appellant's income from his present full-time job exceeds the income he had when the ALJ denied his prior motion to reduce maintenance. Therefore, any error regarding appellant's part-time job is harmless. See Minn. R. Civ.
Prior orders lack a finding of appellant's monthly expenses.
The current order's correction of that omission does not entitle appellant to a finding of changed circumstances. It is unclear what part of the current tax debt the judgment ordered him to pay and what part he has accrued since the judgment. Because the judgment apportioned more than half the parties' tax debt to appellant, much of the current tax debt was apparently contemplated when his maintenance obligation was set. Appellant's tax debt was asserted as a basis for an earlier unsuccessful motion to reduce maintenance and support. The record suggests appellant's debt may have been greater a year ago than it is now.