In re the Marriage of:

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-0696

In re the Marriage of:

Rebecca Lynn McNeil, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Mark Aaron McNeil,
Appellant.

Filed June 12, 2017
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-FA-13-1199

David Sjoberg, Sjoberg Law Office, P.A., Ham Lake, Minnesota (for respondent)

Steven T. Hennek, Hennek Klaenhammer Law, PLLC, Roseville, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant-father Mark McNeil appeals fro m the district court’s judgment and
decree of dissolution and its denial of his mo tion for a new trial under Minn. R. Civ. P.
59.01(g). Father argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding him less
than the presumptive minimum amount of pa renting time, granting respondent-mother
Rebecca McNeil unilateral author ity to enroll the children in extracurricular activities,
limiting designated vacation parenting time to summer months, and ordering him to pay a
portion of the children’s extracurricular costs without sufficient findings. We affirm.
FACTS
The parties were married in 2002. They have two minor children. Mother petitioned
for dissolution of the marriage in June 2013. After a three-day trial, and after considering
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by each party, the district court
filed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, and entered a judgment and decree of
dissolution.
Father moved the district court for amended findings of fact under Minn. R. Civ. P.
52.02 and for a new trial under Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. He challenged the district court’s
f i n d i n g t h a t m o t h e r d o e s n o t w o r k a t T a r get on Thursday evenings, its allocation of
parenting time, its holiday pare nting-time schedule, and its ch ild-support award. Mother
filed a responsive motion, asking the district court to, among other things, clarify whether
father must pay a portion of the expenses for the children’s extracurricular activities.

3
The district court denied father’s moti ons (except for a holiday parenting-time
modification not challenged on appeal). In re sponse to mother’s request for clarification
of whether father must pay a portion of the children’s extracurricular expenses, the district
court amended its order and required mother to pay 65% of the extracurricular expenses
and father to pay 35% of them.
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Father identifies four issues on appeal, which we address individually.1
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in its parenting-time award.

Father argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding him less than
25% of the parenting time for the parties’ jo int children without maki ng findings of fact
sufficient to justify an award below the pres umptive minimum. Minnesota law creates a
rebuttable presumption that parents are “entitled to receive a minimum of 25 percent of the
parenting time for the child.” Minn. Stat. § 51 8.175, subd. 1(g) (201 6). District courts
may determine the percentage of parenting time for a child by “calculating the number of

1 Mother asks us to dismiss father’s appeal because it is not timely and because father failed
to preserve certain issues for appeal by raising them to the district court. She argues that
father’s posttrial motion to amend the judgmen t was improperly labeled and was actually
a motion to reconsider, and as such, it did not toll the time period for father to appeal under
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2. For purposes of rule 104.01, we look at the face of
the document to determine its tolling effect. Mingen v. Mingen, 679 N.W.2d 724, 726 n.3
(Minn. 2004). Because father’s posttrial motion was titled as a motion to amend, it
extended the filing deadline and father’s appeal was timely. Mother’s argument that father
did not raise certain issues to the district court is not suppor ted by the record. Moreover
and importantly, resolution of the issues on the merits is, on this record, uncomplicated.

4
overnights that a child spends with a pa rent or by using a method other than
overnights . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(g).
District courts have br oad discretion to decide parenting-time questions. Olson v.
Olson, 534 N.W.2d 547, 550 (Minn. 1995); Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn.
App. 2014). We will not reverse a parentin g-time decision absent demonstrated abuse of
the district court’s broad discretion by misapplication of the law or by making findings of
fact that are not supported by the record. Dahl v. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Minn. App.
2009).
Here, the district court awarded father parenting time “every other weekend from
after school/work on Friday until Sunday at 7 pm and ev ery Wednesday from after
school/work to Thursday morning.” Father therefore has parenting time two weekend
nights every two weeks and one week night every week. This gives father a total of four
overnights every fourteen days , or 28.57% of the nights. Using this calculation method
expressly permitted by Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(g), the district court awarded father
more than the statutory-minimum parenting tim e. It was not required to make additional
findings.
The district court’s award of parenting time to father was within its discretion.
II. The district court did not abuse its disc retion by granting mother unilateral
authority to enroll the child ren in extracurricular acti vities that might occur
during father’s parenting time.

In its judgment granting mother sole physical custody of the parties’ joint children,
the district court ordered that “[mother] shall have unilateral authority to enroll the minor
children into extracurricular ac tivities[.] . . . In the even t these activities occur during

5
[father’s] parenting time, [father] shall ensure that the minor children attend said activity.”
Father argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding relief on an issue not
litigated at trial and by delegating to a party the court’s authority to allocate parenting time.
Father is correct that “a party must ha ve notice of a claim against him and an
opportunity to oppose it be fore a binding adverse judgm ent may be rendered.” Folk v.
Home Mut. Ins. Co. , 336 N.W.2d 265, 267 (Minn. 1983). Father had notice of mother’s
request that she be granted the authority to enroll the join t children in extracurricular
activities and that she “may exchange” paren ting time “of her choosing” to compensate
appellant for any parenting-time losses caused by scheduling conflicts. That issue was
litigated and addressed in each party’s proposed findings. The district court’s order is
substantially similar to mothe r’s proposed order. The distri ct court did not exceed the
scope of the issues litigated.
Father’s second argument concerning extracurricular activities also fails. A district
court has broad discretion to decide parenting-time questions. Olson, 534 N.W.2d at 550;
Suleski, 855 N.W.2d at 334. We will not reverse a parenti ng-time decision unless the
district court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or by relying on findings of fact
that are not supported by the record. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d at 123. “[T]o the extent practicable
an order for parenting time must include a specific schedule for parenting time . . . .” Minn.
Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(e) (2016 ). We have held that a district court does not abuse its
discretion by giving one party discretion to modify the visitation schedule in order to
provide “a reasonable degree of flexibility to permit the parties to respond to special
events.” See Bliss v. Bliss, 493 N.W.2d 583, 589 (Minn. App. 1992) (stating that a district

6
court did not err by allowing father to modify the visitation schedule so long as mother was
notified), review denied (Minn. Feb. 12, 1993). The distri ct court had discretion to allow
mother, as the sole physical custodian, the authority to schedule appropriate activities for
the children and to adjust the parenting-time schedule to meet their needs. We see no abuse
of the district court’s discretion.
III. The district court did not abuse its di scretion by limiting vacation parenting
time to the summer.

Father next argues that the district cour t abused its discretion by limiting vacation
parenting time to the summer, when neither party requested such a limitation.
A district court has broad discretion to decide parenting-time questions. Olson, 534
N.W.2d at 550; Suleski, 855 N.W.2d at 334. On request , a district court must grant
parenting time “that will be in the best interests of the child.” Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd.
1(a) (2016).
Father is correct that neither party spec ifically requested that vacation parenting
time be limited to the summer months. The district court so limited vacation parenting
time on its own initiative. We are aware of no authority requiring that a district court,
presented with two options concerning parentin g time, must select one of them. “[T]he
paramount issue remains the welfare a nd best interests of the children.” Petersen v.
Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148, 206 N.W.2d 658, 659 (1973); see also Schisel v. Schisel ,
762 N.W.2d 265, 270 (Minn. App. 2009) (not ing that the fundamen tal focus is on the
child’s best interests). The district court acted within its discretion concerning vacation
parenting time.

7
IV. The district court did not abuse its discre tion when it ordered father to pay a
portion of the costs for the children’s extracurricular activities.

In her proposed order, mother requested that the district court order father to pay
50% of the children’s extracurri cular costs, over and above child support. In its original
order, the district court awarded father a downward deviation from the presumptive child-
support amount and did not require father to contribute separately to the children’s
extracurricular-activity expenses. By post-trial motion, mother asked the district court to
“clarify” the issue of whether father must c ontribute to the costs of those extracurricular
activities. Stating that it in advertently failed to include a provision in the order requiring
father to pay for 35% of such extracurricular expenses, the district court ordered him to
pay that amount in its amended judgment and decree.
Father raises three issues concerning extracurricular activities. First, he argues that
the district court erred by deciding an issue that the parties did not litigate at trial. Second,
he argues that the district court erred by amending its order after mother raised the issue at
the posttrial hearing. Finally , he argues that the district court does not have statutory
authority to order him to pay extracurricular costs as part of chil d support without first
making findings sufficient to support an upward deviation from the child-support
guidelines.
A. The district court did not grant relief on issues not raised at trial.
Father’s first and second argument are both founded on the principle that the district
court may not grant relief on issu es not litigated. “[A] party must have notice of a claim
against him and an opportunity to oppose it before a bind ing adverse judgment may be

8
rendered.” Folk, 336 N.W.2d at 267. “A trial court, therefore, is required to base relief on
issues either raised by the pleadings or litigated by consent.” Id.
While the parties never specifically addre ssed at trial precisely how the children’s
extracurricular expenses should be divided, they did address the issue of child support.
Mother’s proposed findings addressed the ex tracurricular-activity question directly. The
district court awarded the extracurricular e xpenses as part of child support, which was
litigated at trial.
B. The district court did not exceed its statutory authority when it ordered
father to pay a portion of extracurricular costs as part of child support.

Father next argues that the district court did not have statutor y authority to order
him to pay extracurricular-activity costs as part of child support without making findings
to support an upward deviation from the guidelines.
A district court has broad discretion to ad dress issues related to child support.
Rutten v. Rutten , 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984). The district court must resolve a
question in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record before this court will find
that the trial court abused its discretion.” Id. A district court must make findings if it
deviates from the presumptive child support obligation calculated in Minn. Stat. § 518A.34.
Minn. Stat. § 518A.37, subd. 2 (2016). However, it need not make findings when it follows
the child support guidelines. Minn. Stat. § 518.37, subd. 1 (2016); State ex rel. Rimolde v.
Tinker, 601 N.W.2d 468, 471 (Minn. App. 1999).
Here, the district court ordered a dow nward deviation from the child-support
guidelines and reduced father’s monthly monetary child-support payment to $500 from the

9
presumptive amount of $864. In its post-trial amendment of the judgment and decree, the
district court indicated that it was requiri ng father to pay a portion of the children’s
extracurricular-activity costs ba sed, in part, on this downwa rd deviation. Father’s
obligation to pay a portion of the children’s extracurricula r-activity expenses will not
increase father’s overall monthly obligatio n above the presumptive monthly support
amount of $864. The district court did not abuse its discretion by obligating father to
contribute to extracurricular-activity costs, where his net monthly support payment remains
less than the presumptive-guideline amount.2
Affirmed.

2 In the future, should mother enroll the children in activities which increase father’s overall
monthly financial contribution to the childr en’s care and support above the presumptive-
guidelines amount, the district court has the authority to modify father’s support obligation
under Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 1 (2016), on motion duly noted.