This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-1517
In re the Marriage of:
Shima Shojaee Falavarjani, petitioner, Appellant,
vs.
Navid Tabrizi, Respondent.
Filed May 6, 2024 Affirmed Reilly, Judge *
Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-FA-20-2113
Kathryn M. Lammers, Carlo E. Faccini, Heimerl & Lammers, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Mary L. Hahn, Britt Ackerman, Hvistendahl, Moersch, Dorsey & Hahn, P.A., Northfield, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
On appeal from judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, appellant argues that the
district court should not have (1) omitted respondent’s bonuses when calculating income
for purposes of child support and maintenance, and (2) treated appellant’s “dowry” of
certain gold coins as marital property. Because we discern no error with the determination
that respondent’s bonuses were not sufficiently dependable periodic payments to include
as income, or that the equitable division of marital property included the gold coins, we
conclude the district court acted within its discretion and affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Shima Shojaee Falavarjani and respondent Navid Tabrizi met in Iran and
were married on May 14, 2010, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Six months later, they held a
religious ceremony in Iran.
In November 2020, Falavarjani petitioned a Minnesota district court for dissolution
of marriage, requesting joint legal and sole physical custody of the parties’ three minor
children. The parties stipulated to joint legal and joint physical custody in July 2022. The
district court held a trial later that year on the outstanding issues involved in the dissolution
proceeding, including the division of assets and the calculation of spousal maintenance and
child support.
The district court entered a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage on January
27, 2023, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.06 (2022). Because of a clerical error, the district
court amended its findings a few days later on February 3, 2023. Tabrizi worked at Sleep
2 Number Corporation in the United States throughout the duration of the marriage, while
Falavarjani worked as the primary caregiver for the children. In the February 2023
amended findings, the district court determined that Tabrizi’s income and the
corresponding parental income available for child support (PICS) was $13,856 per month.
Shortly before separating, Tabrizi’s income increased—he received annual bonuses
because of Sleep Number’s rising profits during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the district
court did not include Tabrizi’s bonuses in its income calculation because the district court
found that the bonuses were unlikely to continue “due to the slowdown of consumer
purchasing.” Falavarjani was awarded temporary spousal maintenance totaling $4,000 per
month through January 1, 2027. The district court determined that Tabrizi’s child-support
obligation, a 100% share of the PICS, was $1,662 per month.
The district court also found that Falavarjani had ten gold coins in her possession
that were “given to [the couple] during the marriage ceremony held in Iran.” The district
court determined that it had jurisdiction over the ten gold coins as part of the dissolution
proceeding. As marital property, the district court divided the coins equally between
Falavarjani and Tabrizi.
The parties moved to amend the district court’s amended findings. In an August
2023 order, the district court granted Tabrizi’s motion to amend its calculation of the PICS
because it failed to include Falavarjani’s potential income and her income from spousal
maintenance. The PICS was amended to $15,233, with Falavarjani carrying a 35% share
and Tabrizi 65%. But the district court denied Falavarjani’s motions to include Tabrizi’s
bonuses in its income calculation, and to reconsider division of the gold coins. Based on
3 the revised PICS, the district court determined that Tabrizi owed child support totaling
$1,251 per month ($1,161 after subtracting Falavarjani’s own medical support obligation
of $90). Falavarjani appeals.
DECISION
Falavarjani argues the district court erred by (1) excluding Tabrizi’s bonuses in its
income calculation, and (2) distributing the ten gold coins as marital property. “In
dissolution cases, the district court has broad discretion regarding the division of property,
spousal maintenance and child support.” Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009).
I. Income
Falavarjani first argues the district court erred in calculating Tabrizi’s income
because the trial evidence “illustrate[s] a past regular history of bonus income being
received and fail[s] to indicate that bonus income would cease.”
“A court’s determination of income must be based in fact and will stand unless
clearly erroneous.” Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015)
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015); see In re Civ. Commitment of
Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 222-23 (Minn. 2021) (outlining clear-error standard); Bayer v.
Bayer, 979 N.W.2d 507, 513 (Minn. App. 2022) (citing Kenney in a family-law appeal).
But whether a source of funds is considered income is a question of law reviewed de novo.
Sherburne Cnty. Soc. Servs. ex rel. Schafer v. Riedle, 481 N.W.2d 111, 112
(Minn. App. 1992).
“[G]ross income includes any form of periodic payment to an individual. . . .”
Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2022). “[B]onuses are forms of periodic payment and therefore
4 income.” Novak v. Novak, 406 N.W.2d 64, 68 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn.
July 22, 1987). Bonuses may be included as income if the district court finds that the bonus
is “the type of income which could or should provide a dependable source of child support.”
Haasken v. Haasken, 396 N.W.2d 253, 261 (Minn. App. 1986) (quotation omitted).
The district court determined that Tabrizi’s bonuses were not sufficiently regular
and dependable “periodic payment[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a). This conclusion is
supported by the record. In the 16 years Tabrizi worked for Sleep Number, bonuses were
“very rare[].” Because of the pandemic, Sleep Number’s business boomed, leading to large
annual bonuses for its employees like Tabrizi. But bonuses were based on Sleep Number’s
profitability, not necessarily Tabrizi’s performance as an employee. Tabrizi testified that
“due to supply chain constraints” and “stock go[ing] down,” Sleep Number was not
forecasting such high bonuses in the future.
Falavarjani argues the district court should have determined the bonuses were
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-1517
In re the Marriage of:
Shima Shojaee Falavarjani, petitioner, Appellant,
vs.
Navid Tabrizi, Respondent.
Filed May 6, 2024 Affirmed Reilly, Judge *
Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-FA-20-2113
Kathryn M. Lammers, Carlo E. Faccini, Heimerl & Lammers, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Mary L. Hahn, Britt Ackerman, Hvistendahl, Moersch, Dorsey & Hahn, P.A., Northfield, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
On appeal from judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, appellant argues that the
district court should not have (1) omitted respondent’s bonuses when calculating income
for purposes of child support and maintenance, and (2) treated appellant’s “dowry” of
certain gold coins as marital property. Because we discern no error with the determination
that respondent’s bonuses were not sufficiently dependable periodic payments to include
as income, or that the equitable division of marital property included the gold coins, we
conclude the district court acted within its discretion and affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Shima Shojaee Falavarjani and respondent Navid Tabrizi met in Iran and
were married on May 14, 2010, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Six months later, they held a
religious ceremony in Iran.
In November 2020, Falavarjani petitioned a Minnesota district court for dissolution
of marriage, requesting joint legal and sole physical custody of the parties’ three minor
children. The parties stipulated to joint legal and joint physical custody in July 2022. The
district court held a trial later that year on the outstanding issues involved in the dissolution
proceeding, including the division of assets and the calculation of spousal maintenance and
child support.
The district court entered a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage on January
27, 2023, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.06 (2022). Because of a clerical error, the district
court amended its findings a few days later on February 3, 2023. Tabrizi worked at Sleep
2 Number Corporation in the United States throughout the duration of the marriage, while
Falavarjani worked as the primary caregiver for the children. In the February 2023
amended findings, the district court determined that Tabrizi’s income and the
corresponding parental income available for child support (PICS) was $13,856 per month.
Shortly before separating, Tabrizi’s income increased—he received annual bonuses
because of Sleep Number’s rising profits during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the district
court did not include Tabrizi’s bonuses in its income calculation because the district court
found that the bonuses were unlikely to continue “due to the slowdown of consumer
purchasing.” Falavarjani was awarded temporary spousal maintenance totaling $4,000 per
month through January 1, 2027. The district court determined that Tabrizi’s child-support
obligation, a 100% share of the PICS, was $1,662 per month.
The district court also found that Falavarjani had ten gold coins in her possession
that were “given to [the couple] during the marriage ceremony held in Iran.” The district
court determined that it had jurisdiction over the ten gold coins as part of the dissolution
proceeding. As marital property, the district court divided the coins equally between
Falavarjani and Tabrizi.
The parties moved to amend the district court’s amended findings. In an August
2023 order, the district court granted Tabrizi’s motion to amend its calculation of the PICS
because it failed to include Falavarjani’s potential income and her income from spousal
maintenance. The PICS was amended to $15,233, with Falavarjani carrying a 35% share
and Tabrizi 65%. But the district court denied Falavarjani’s motions to include Tabrizi’s
bonuses in its income calculation, and to reconsider division of the gold coins. Based on
3 the revised PICS, the district court determined that Tabrizi owed child support totaling
$1,251 per month ($1,161 after subtracting Falavarjani’s own medical support obligation
of $90). Falavarjani appeals.
DECISION
Falavarjani argues the district court erred by (1) excluding Tabrizi’s bonuses in its
income calculation, and (2) distributing the ten gold coins as marital property. “In
dissolution cases, the district court has broad discretion regarding the division of property,
spousal maintenance and child support.” Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009).
I. Income
Falavarjani first argues the district court erred in calculating Tabrizi’s income
because the trial evidence “illustrate[s] a past regular history of bonus income being
received and fail[s] to indicate that bonus income would cease.”
“A court’s determination of income must be based in fact and will stand unless
clearly erroneous.” Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015)
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015); see In re Civ. Commitment of
Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 222-23 (Minn. 2021) (outlining clear-error standard); Bayer v.
Bayer, 979 N.W.2d 507, 513 (Minn. App. 2022) (citing Kenney in a family-law appeal).
But whether a source of funds is considered income is a question of law reviewed de novo.
Sherburne Cnty. Soc. Servs. ex rel. Schafer v. Riedle, 481 N.W.2d 111, 112
(Minn. App. 1992).
“[G]ross income includes any form of periodic payment to an individual. . . .”
Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2022). “[B]onuses are forms of periodic payment and therefore
4 income.” Novak v. Novak, 406 N.W.2d 64, 68 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn.
July 22, 1987). Bonuses may be included as income if the district court finds that the bonus
is “the type of income which could or should provide a dependable source of child support.”
Haasken v. Haasken, 396 N.W.2d 253, 261 (Minn. App. 1986) (quotation omitted).
The district court determined that Tabrizi’s bonuses were not sufficiently regular
and dependable “periodic payment[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a). This conclusion is
supported by the record. In the 16 years Tabrizi worked for Sleep Number, bonuses were
“very rare[].” Because of the pandemic, Sleep Number’s business boomed, leading to large
annual bonuses for its employees like Tabrizi. But bonuses were based on Sleep Number’s
profitability, not necessarily Tabrizi’s performance as an employee. Tabrizi testified that
“due to supply chain constraints” and “stock go[ing] down,” Sleep Number was not
forecasting such high bonuses in the future.
Falavarjani argues the district court should have determined the bonuses were
dependable sources of income because Tabrizi received bonuses over a four-year period.
But Falavarjani fails to point to evidence documenting these bonuses, and our review of
the record indicates there is documentation of “Annual Incentive” bonuses on Tabrizi’s
paystubs for just two years—2020 and 2021. Partial documentation of two years of
bonuses, with no evidence the bonuses would continue, does not amount to the repetitive
certainty required to impute income. On this record we thus discern no error with the
district court’s conclusion that Tabrizi’s bonuses were not a sufficiently dependable source
of income to be included in his gross income for purposes of calculating child support and
spousal maintenance. See Haasken, 396 N.W.2d at 261.
5 II. Division of Gold Coins as Marital Property
To begin, Falavarjani asserts the district court lacked the authority to apportion ten
gold coins as part of the marriage dissolution. The district court concluded it “appropriately
retained jurisdiction over the gold coins.” Falavarjani thus appears to challenge the district
court’s jurisdiction finding, although she articulates it as an issue of the court’s authority.
See Moore v. Moore, 734 N.W.2d 285, 287 n.1 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn.
Sept. 18, 2007). Minnesota courts clearly have subject-matter jurisdiction over, and the
authority to divide property in, a marriage dissolution proceeding. Minn. Stat. § 518.58,
subds. 1, 2 (2022) (“Upon a dissolution of marriage . . . the court shall make a just and
equitable division of the marital property of the parties. . . .”). And, in her petition for
dissolution, Falavarjani requested the district court apportion the parties’ marital assets.
After concluding it had authority over the parties’ assets involved in the dissolution
proceeding, the district court determined the gold coins were marital property and divided
them equally between Falavarjani and Tabrizi. On appeal, Falavarjani essentially argues
that the gold coins are not a marital asset, but her dowry, a nonmarital property asset, and
that the district court’s division of the property was inequitable.
This court reviews de novo whether property is marital or nonmarital, but it defers
to the district court’s underlying findings of fact. Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644, 649
(Minn. 2008). If a district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, this court may “set the
findings aside.” Gill v. Gill, 919 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Minn. 2018); see Kenney, 963 N.W.2d
at 222-23. When parties to a dissolution challenge the district court’s division of their
6 marital property, appellate courts review that division for an abuse of discretion. Antone
v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002).
The nature of a married couple’s property is often a matter of timing. Gill,
919 N.W.2d at 303. Marital property generally includes property acquired during a
marriage, while nonmarital property includes property acquired before marriage. Minn.
Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b (2022) (defining “marital property” and “nonmarital property”).
Falavarjani and Tabrizi were married in Utah in May 2010, around six months before their
marriage ceremony in Iran. It is undisputed the gold coins were acquired as part of the
Iranian ceremony, and after the two were legally married in the United States. Thus, the
gold coins are presumptively marital property. See Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b.
Falavarjani asserts the gold coins are an Iranian dowry and therefore her nonmarital
property. Tabrizi testified that the coins were wedding gifts given to the couple jointly as
an investment to support their family. If, as Falavarjani asserts, Tabrizi gave her the gold
coins as part of an Iranian dowry or gift, 1 then they could be her nonmarital property. See
id. (“‘Nonmarital property’ means property . . . acquired as a gift, bequest, devise or
inheritance made by a third party to one but not to the other spouse. . . .”). A valid gift
requires the donor intend to make a gift, that the gifted property be delivered, and that the
donor absolutely dispose of that property. Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn.
1997). Falavarjani carried the burden of rebutting the presumption that the gold coins were
1 There was no expert testimony on Iranian marriage ceremonies, but we note generally based on the parties’ collective testimony that an Iranian “dowry” is not something produced by the bride’s family, but a gift provided by the husband or husband’s family to his future wife, intended to put the parties in more equal bargaining positions.
7 marital property and proving the elements of a valid gift by clear and convincing evidence.
See id.; Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b (“The presumption of marital property is overcome
by a showing that the property is nonmarital property.”).
Falavarjani failed to put forth any evidence that the gold coins were a gift to her or
are otherwise her nonmarital property. See id. Tabrizi provided a spreadsheet of the gifts
received, denoting the gold coins as collective wedding gifts. Falavarjani did not provide
any alternate evidence. Neither party introduced evidence of the actual value of the gold
coins. 2 For that reason, the district court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and,
absent donative intent or an actual accounting of the coins’ value, the district court did not
otherwise err when it ruled that the ten gold coins are marital property. See Minn. Stat.
§ 518.58, subd. 1. We also conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when
it divided the gold coins, as marital property, equally and equitably.
Affirmed.
2 The parties also presented conflicting testimony about whether Falavarjani sold a few of
the gold coins during the marriage. The district court found Tabrizi’s testimony more credible, and this court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).