Court Opinion

ID: 9575228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:12:30.086626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:05.019323
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge,
concurring specially.
While agreeing that the trial court decision must be reversed and the case remand*703ed for further attention, I concur specially with the lead opinion.
1. Rent expense.
The trial court made findings specifically stating the items making up appellant’s minimum monthly expenses. These items included a rent expense of $295, the amount reported by appellant in her supporting affidavit dated August 1, 1985.
In the supplementary affidavit dated February 7, 1986, appellant reported to the court that her rent would increasé to $336.25 per month on April 1, 1986. The trial court erred in disregarding this information when issuing its order dated April 15, 1986. Respondent does not dispute the claim of this error.
Lidia Eichenholz’s February 1986 affidavit also reported that her rent would increase to $350 on July 1, 1986. Although that information is not pertinent to the trial court order we are reviewing, it should be taken into account on remand.
2. Medical insurance.
In the modification proceedings concluded in 1982, appellant testified she had applied for group health benefits that would cost from $180 to $222 per month. She reported that the application process would take about six months, or up to a year, because of the need to assess her medical problems. Contradicting these observations, appellant also testified that she would be unable to get insurance because of her prior ill health. During the earlier modification proceeding, appellant claimed personal expenses, excluding medical costs, totaling more than $400. Because the trial court found that all of her needs totaled $550 in 1982, it is evident that the trial court refused to make an allowance for appellant’s purchase of medical insurance.
In the current proceeding, appellant reported that she “will be unable to cover the cost of catastrophic illness,” and that her costs for “unmet medical needs” include a monthly expense of $189.50 for medical insurance, if she can obtain coverage at a cost no more than the cost of Medicare coverage for persons over age 65. Later, in a report of her attorney to the trial court, it was again noted that appellant was “without insurance to cover catastrophic medical needs,” and that “it is reasonable to expect” that her cost for coverage would be at least $214 per month, a figure represented as the current cost for Medicare hospitalization coverage. Appellant is not currently eligible to purchase Medicare coverage, and she offered no evidence indicating the actual cost of alternative coverage or the likelihood that she might succeed in buying private coverage.
Responding to appellant’s current presentation on the insurance topic, the trial court found that she “is without insurance to cover medical needs,” and that insurance would cost “approximately” $214 per month. In spite of this finding, the trial court made no present allowance for the purchase of medical insurance. The trial court furnished no explanation why the insurance cost topic was initially addressed in its findings but finally omitted in its estimate of appellant’s current needs. This gap in the trial court’s findings constitutes error, and the case must be remanded for a determination of the reasonableness of appellant’s claim for payment of medical insurance cost.
On remand, the trial court should determine whether medical insurance costs are among reasonable or necessary personal expenses for appellant at the present time. It will be necessary to determine whether coverage is available, and to identify from reliable evidence what the coverage will cost. If the coverage goes beyond catastrophic costs, so that insurance benefits will reduce ordinary medical expenses for appellant, the trial court must take this into account in redetermining the amount of current medical expenses.
Respondent contends appellant is bound by the decision of the trial court in 1982 to disregard her claim for payment of medical insurance costs. Respondent argues that an issue of this kind cannot be relitigated, even if the trial court has cause to redeter*704mine the maintenance obligation because of an intervening change in circumstances. It is evident, however, that the circumstances here do not present the res judicata issue defined by respondent. In 1982, the trial court did not decide that medical insurance costs were unnecessary or unreasonable. In fact, appellant testified at the time that she was not incurring those costs, and the record shows there was a serious question whether insurance coverage was available to her. It is reasonable to conclude that the 1982 trial court order merely put aside the insurance coverage question for later modification proceedings. After the 1982 decision, appellant remained free to obtain additional information on insurance costs and to present at a later time her contention that these costs were among her necessary expenses.
Respondent also contends that an award of maintenance to cover medical insurance costs would be unjust because appellant can qualify for public assistance benefits that would involve payment for all her medical needs. The record shows appellant received public assistance before maintenance was increased in 1982, and that the increased maintenance destroyed her eligibility for assistance; in fact, as appellant points out, she lost nearly $100 more in public assistance than she gained by increased maintenance. This argument of respondent is wholly specious. It should go without saying that there can be no plea for public assistance in a circumstance where maintenance is needed and justly demanded, and where the obligor is able to pay the award.
3. Other medical expenses.
The trial court included $115 medical expenses in its listing of appellant’s current “minimum monthly expenses.” The court made related findings that appellant’s past medical expenses had averaged $99.31 per month for more than three years, and that appellant had “deferred certain other medical needs,” involving costs of nearly $1200. These findings corresponded approximately to appellant's claims, although the court did not address appellant’s report in February 1986 that she was purchasing an additional necessary medication at a cost of $7.09 per month. The court also made no mention of appellant’s claim of a $20.83 monthly cost for a wig and wig maintenance that appellant desired to purchase because of hair loss evidently related to her use of medications.
We mandate in the lead opinion the trial court’s “full consideration” of all medical needs enumerated in the trial court’s findings. That opinion reports that trial court findings on deferred expenses involve a monthly cost of $99.09. In my opinion, it remains for the trial court to indicate the amount of monthly maintenance required to cover necessary expenses previously deferred. The trial court found a record of “other medical needs” deferred between April 1982 and July 31, 1985, totaling $1,189.05. Over a 40-month period, these deferred needs involved an average monthly cost of about $30. On remand, it is for the trial court to determine the significance of the deferred expenses in terms of monthly maintenance that must be available in the future to meet needs that are expected to arise.
4. Income taxes.
The parties agree appellant will have income tax cost connected with an increase in her maintenance award. In its 1986 order, the trial court found that appellant’s state and federal income tax costs of $100 per month were among her minimum monthly expenses. Depending upon the trial court’s conclusions on remand regarding the amount of appellant’s needs, the allowance for income tax costs may require review.
Respondent contends that a $275 maintenance increase would involve federal taxes of only $41.25 per month, under tax laws enacted after the trial court’s decision in April 1986. It is true that the trial court should take into account the effect of changed income tax laws. It is not true, however, as suggested by respondent, that the trial court is obligated to limit its *705award for taxes to the amount chargeable solely to a maintenance increase. The trial court is free to consider the entire amount of appellant’s income tax costs.1
5. Substantially changed circumstances.
Respondent contends there is inadequate evidence justifying the trial court’s finding that appellant’s circumstances have substantially changed since 1982. We must recognize, as respondent argues, that maintenance was first established in this case in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, and that proposals to modify maintenance must be “carefully” and “reluctantly” considered under those circumstances. Claybaugh v. Claybaugh, 312 N.W.2d 447, 449 (Minn.1981). While the courts are not controlled by the history of a stipulation, they must be restrained by this important consideration. Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180, 186 N.W.2d 678, 683 (1971).
In her supporting affidavits, appellant claimed current necessary expenses of about $680 more than the $550 “minimum monthly expenses” recognized by the trial court in 1982. The trial court found that appellant’s current “minimum” monthly expenses totaled $825, up $275 from 1982. Respondent contends that many of the new expenses claimed by appellant and recognized by the trial court represent nothing other than restatement of claims considered and rejected in 1982.
Excluding tax costs and medical insurance costs, the trial court found appellant has present minimum needs of $610 per month. It is evident from the record that this represents an increase between $150 (32%) and $195 (47%) over the same category of expenses claimed and recognized in 1982. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding on these personal expenses. In addition, the court improperly disregarded $41.25 in appellant’s extra rental expenses beginning April 1, 1986. The evidence demonstrates substantially increased needs of appellant. That conclusion is consistent with a cautious and restrained approach to the modification question in the case.
It is true, as respondent contends, that many of the increased medical expenses claimed by appellant differ little from those she reported in 1982. It is also true that much of the income tax cost found by the trial court is attributable to the present increase in the award and does not represent an independent change in circumstances. These considerations, however, take nothing away from the analysis of the increase in appellant’s other personal needs. The trial court has not erred in choosing to alter the maintenance award.

. Respondent repeatedly contends that any maintenance increases must be attributable to expenses first incurred after the 1982 maintenance award. He argues the 1982 decision is final on any expenses existing at that time. We need not decide here whether respondent’s point is valid, or alternatively, whether the court is free to assess current needs once it has decided that the parties have experienced substantially changed circumstances. There is no record here suggesting that income tax cost was a topic presented to the court in 1982, or that this cost was of any significance before that time.