Marriage of Milke v. Mamer

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Marriage of Milke v. Mamer

405 N.W.2d 7, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4353

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedMay 12, 1987

DocketNo. C4-86-1858

StatusPublished

This text of 405 N.W.2d 7 (Marriage of Milke v. Mamer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marriage of Milke v. Mamer, 405 N.W.2d 7, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4353 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to reduce child support and forgive arrearages. The trial court denied the motion without making findings. We remand for necessary findings on statutory factors.

FACTS

Samuel David Milke and Debra Ann Milke Mamer dissolved their marriage on August 5, 1983. Mamer received custody of the parties’ two children and Milke was ordered to pay $350 per month child support. In April 1985 Rice County, on behalf of Mamer, moved for assessment of arrear-ages against Milke and for an income withholding order. After a series of hearings and several orders determining arrearages, the court, on June 10, 1986, entered an order setting cumulative arrearages at $4,391.60. Milke brought a motion for reduction of his child support obligation and forgiveness of arrearages on August 27, 1986. After a hearing, the trial court denied Milke’s motion without findings.

DECISION

The decision to grant or deny modification of a child support award is within the discretion of the trial court; however, the trial court must make findings to demonstrate that it considered legislatively required factors. Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn.1986). These findings are required even if the trial court denies a modification motion, Olson v. Olson, 399 N.W.2d 660, 664 (Minn.Ct.App.1987).

The order appealed from states:

Based upon the moving papers, the arguments of counsel and being fully informed, the complete file,

IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that Samuel David Milke’s request to have the amount of child support he is required to pay reduced is in all respects denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The trial court did not specify what factors it considered in reaching its conclusion. Without findings, we have no basis on which to review the order. Accordingly, we remand the case for appropriate findings. See Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301 (Minn.1986); see also Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 344 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn.Ct. App.1984) (arrearages reduced to judgment are res judicata).

Remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to reduce child support and forgive arrearages. The trial court denied the motion without making findings. We remand for necessary findings on statutory factors.

FACTS

Samuel David Milke and Debra Ann Milke Mamer dissolved their marriage on August 5, 1983. Mamer received custody of the parties’ two children and Milke was ordered to pay $350 per month child support. In April 1985 Rice County, on behalf of Mamer, moved for assessment of arrear-ages against Milke and for an income withholding order. After a series of hearings and several orders determining arrearages, the court, on June 10, 1986, entered an order setting cumulative arrearages at $4,391.60. Milke brought a motion for reduction of his child support obligation and forgiveness of arrearages on August 27, 1986. After a hearing, the trial court denied Milke’s motion without findings.

DECISION

The decision to grant or deny modification of a child support award is within the discretion of the trial court; however, the trial court must make findings to demonstrate that it considered legislatively required factors. Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn.1986). These findings are required even if the trial court denies a modification motion, Olson v. Olson, 399 N.W.2d 660, 664 (Minn.Ct.App.1987).

The order appealed from states:

Based upon the moving papers, the arguments of counsel and being fully informed, the complete file,

IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that Samuel David Milke’s request to have the amount of child support he is required to pay reduced is in all respects denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The trial court did not specify what factors it considered in reaching its conclusion. Without findings, we have no basis on which to review the order. Accordingly, we remand the case for appropriate findings. See Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301 (Minn.1986); see also Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 344 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn.Ct. App.1984) (arrearages reduced to judgment are res judicata).

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 N.W.2d 7, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marriage-of-milke-v-mamer-minnctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack