Cited by

Apungu appeals.2 DECISION We review a magistrate’s decision to modify or establish child support for an abuse of discretion.3 -56 (Minn. App. 2017), aff’d on other grounds, (stating that the standard of review for a magistrate’s decision “is the same as it would be if the decision had been made

As explained below, we conclude that mother’s contentions do not present a basis for reversal.1 “Appellate courts review a district court’s child-support- modification decision for [an] abuse of discretion.” ().

(stating that, generally, appellate courts review orders modifying child support “for abuse of discretion”).

(stating that, generally, appellate courts “review orders modifying child support for abuse of discretion”).

the district court reasoned: “Periodic means ‘marked by repeated cycles or happening at regular intervals.’” Based on this definition, the court found that wife’s ESOP did not meet the legal definition of gross income.

“[C]ertain adjustments or credits may apply based on whether the parents have nonjoint children and 7 each parent’s amount of parenting time.” accord Minn. Stat. §§ 518A.34(c), .36 (2024).

generally means that a benefit must be actually received by the [party], as opposed to merely vested or owed, in order to constitute income.”

Rather, corporate profits are deemed to pass through directly to the shareholders on a pro rata basis and are reported on the shareholders’ individual tax returns.” (citation omitted).

ordinary and necessary expenses.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.30

“When the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, we will look only to that language in ascertaining legislative intent.”

“When the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, we will look only to that language in ascertaining legislative intent.”

Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.36 (2024)); n.1 (Minn. 2015)

(parenting-time modification); (child-support modification).

“The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 518A.30 gives the district court broad discretion to determine whether to allow a parent to deduct an expense, even an otherwise ordinary and necessary expense, from income.”

generally means that a benefit must be actually 9 received by the [party], as opposed to merely vested or owed, in order to constitute income.”

Mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by “refus[ing] to address [her] child support modification motion.” Appellate courts generally review orders modifying child support “for abuse of discretion.” 708 (Minn. 2013).

.30, a district court “must first identify the business’s gross receipts, cost of goods sold (if applicable), and ordinary and necessary expenses, and then apply the formula by subtracting the cost of goods sold and ordinary and necessary expenses from the business’s gross receipts in order to arrive at the parent’s income from self-employment or operation of a business.”

operation of a business.”

We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo; and the ultimate decision of whether to modify child support for an abuse of discretion, 2

Specifically, a district court “must take into consideration” certain statutory factors “in setting or modifying child support or in determining whether to deviate upward or downward from the presumptive child support obligation.” Id.

If a district court sets a support obligation at an amount deviating from the guidelines amount, the district court’s findings must include, in part, “the reasons for the deviation.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518A.37, subd.

Haefele v. Haefele , (child-support modification) ; (parenting-time modification) ; (need-based attorney fees).

Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.36 (2022)); n.1 (Minn. 2015)

We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the ultimate decision to modify child support for an abuse of discretion

generally means marked by repeated cycles, or happening or appearing at regular intervals.” (quotation omitted).

Minn. Stat. § 518A.43 (2020); d 703, 708 (Minn. 2013).

(interpreting a prior version of the parenting-expense-adjustment statute de novo).

Minn. Stat. § 518A.43 (2020); d 703, 708 (Minn. 2013).

The CSM then added another $2,472 in gross monthly income based on Jacobs’s share of Bald Man Brewing’s profits; the CS M determined Jacobs’s share of Bald Man Brewing’s profits from the business’s profit-a nd-loss statement and, even though Jacobs did not actually receive hi s share of the profits, 1 included them in his monthly income