Court Opinion

ID: 9884722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:09:31.537106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:40.348195
License: Public Domain

FOLEY, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result that a remand for findings under both Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn.1986), and Stich v. Stich, 435 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.1989), is essential for proper appellate review. However, I have determined to elaborate in this special concurring opinion on what I perceive the holdings of Moylan and Stich to mean with respect to the language to be used by the trial court before it can be held that a decree be modified by post-decree motion.
In Moylan, Chief Justice Amdahl, writing for the supreme court, said:
The record in this case is unclear as to the findings and reasoning of the trial court. Its modification order states only that Gerald experienced a substantial increase in income, one of the factors required under Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2. However, there is no mention in that order that this increase in income *196renders the original child support order unreasonable and unfair, as required under the modification statute.
Id. at 864 (emphasis supplied). In reversing the court of appeals, the supreme court said:
While the record may support a trial court’s decision, it is nevertheless inadequate if that record fails to reveal that the trial court actually considered the appropriate factors. While we would agree that there are occasions where an appellate court can find support for a trial court’s decision by an independent review of the record, see Bowman v. Brooklyn Pet Hospital, 311 Minn. 526, 247 N.W.2d 424 (1976), such action is improper where, as here, it is unclear whether the trial court considered factors expressly mandated by the legislature.
Id. at 865.
In a later case, Chief Justice Amdahl, again writing the opinion for the court, said:
The trial court’s findings merely state that Lawrence’s gross income has “more than doubled during a five-year period since the dissolution and is a significant change in circumstances entitling the minor children to increased support.” Although Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(1) (Supp.1985), lists “substantially increased or decreased earnings of a party” as one of the factors on which a modification may be based, the trial court made no finding that Lawrence’s increased income makes the terms of the original decree “unreasonable and unfair” as required by the statute.
Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301, 303 (Minn.1986). Reaffirming Moylan, the supreme court said:
We cannot stress enough the importance of having findings of fact that demonstrate the trial court actually did take all relevant factors into consideration.
Erickson, 385 N.W.2d at 303.
These statements by the supreme court mandate that the “magic words” required under Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2, “unreasonable and unfair” referring to the terms of the decree, must be used when detailing the statutory factors. To reiterate, in Moylan, the supreme court stated:
However, there is no mention in that order that this increase in income renders the original child support order unreasonable and unfair, as required under the modification statute.
Moylan, 384 N.W.2d at 864.
Our decision in Merrick v. Merrick, 440 N.W.2d 142 (Minn.Ct.App.1989), is consistent with Moylan, as well as with Stich. In Thompson v. Thompson, 392 N.W.2d 661 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), this court held:
If the court finds failure to pay was not willful, it must consider changed circumstances and whether the existence of changed circumstances render the terms of the decree unreasonable and unfair.
Id. at 663. In Miller v. Miller, 370 N.W.2d 481 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), this court held:
The court in this instance did not determine that the parties’ changed circumstances rendered the terms of the decree unreasonable and unfair, warranting forgiveness of Charles’ arrearages * * *.
Id. at 484.
Applying the Moylan standard to this case, it is clear that the factors clearly mandated by Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 are not contained in the findings, and that the case must be remanded. The findings are inadequate because they fail to reveal “that the trial court actually considered the appropriate factors.” Moylan, 384 N.W.2d at 865.