Court Opinion

ID: 9884823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:15:57.843032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:41.038014
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would have affirmed the trial court. The issue is the denial of an obligee’s motion for an upward deviation from the child support guidelines. Thus, an appellate court on review is faced with an extremely limited opportunity to reverse or modify. When a trial court in a dissolution action denies a motion to deviate upward or downward and applies the child support guidelines figure, it is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and should only be reversed when a clear abuse of discretion is present. See Martin v. Martin, 364 N.W.2d 475, 478 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).
Briefly, respondent’s income rose by an amount that he agreed constituted enough *848of an increase to legally justify modification. Respondent volunteered to pay the amount needed to bring his obligation up to current guidelines level. Appellant refused the offer and presented to the court her evidence supporting an upward deviation. A trial court judge approved the referee’s order calling for guidelines support, and on a Rule 53 motion,1 a second trial court judge reviewed the matter and affirmed the referee’s order.
Each party presented evidence as to income and expenses. The findings are not perfect, and could be more detailed. However, the record supports the reasonable conclusion that each side had an opportunity to present its evidence, and the trial court was cognizant of and considered each party’s claims when it made its final decision.
In conformity with the child support guidelines, the trial court increased child support by the substantial amount of $229 a month. Given the wide discretion afforded trial courts in these matters, I would have affirmed.

. Minn.R.Civ.P. 53.05(2).