Cited by

(emphasis added); see generally, -04 (Minn. App. 2008) (noting that, pending an appeal of a child-support order, if the relevant circumstances have changed, the district court retains authority to address a motion to modify the support order that is the subject of the appeal, or to defer proceedings on the motion pending resolution of the app

This rule “is designed to avoid the confusion and waste of time potentially arising from having the same issues before two courts at the same time.” 9 ().

In Perry v. Perry, we concluded that the district court had authority to consider a motion to modify child support despite a pending child-support appeal because the motion to modify “was supplemental and collateral to the issue on appeal.” d 399, 401 (Minn. App. 2008).

Nor do they articulate how the cases they cite, and support their assertion that permitting USAA to deposit the funds would create a “legal mess.” To the contrary, the two cases support USAA’s argument that its motion involved a “new set of facts”—pertaining only to its tender of the judgment a

An order is independent, supplemental, or collateral “if it involves a new set of facts and does not require the district court to consider the merits of the issue on appeal.”

And “a properly grounded motion to modify child support is independent of, supplemental to, or collateral to previous child-support orders.” (quotation omitted).

“[A]n order does not necessarily affect the order on appeal if it involves a new set of facts and does not require the district court to consider the merits of the issue on appeal.” Perry v. Perry

See generally, -04 (Minn. App, 2008) (recognizing that, during the pendency of an appeal of a child-support order, the district court retains authority to address a motion to modify the support order that is the subject of the appeal or to defer proceedings on the motion pending resolution of the appeal).

and may in the future, on an appropriate motion, consider the order for protection together with all other relevant evidence.

1; (concluding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to modify a child-support order while an appeal of that support order was pending, when the more recent order involved new facts, did not require reconsideration of the merits of the appealed-from issue, and implicated