In re the Marriage of: Jose Flores Moran, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A16-1243

In re the Marriage of: Jose Flores Moran, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Yolanda Jimenez,
Respondent.

Filed March 6, 2017
Affirmed
Stauber, Judge

Dodge County District Court
File No. 20-FA-12-80

Ismail O. Hussein, Law Office of Ismail Hussein, Columbia Heights, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Daryl D. Bail, Patton, Hoversten & Berg, P.A., Owatonna, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presid ing Judge; Worke, Judge; and Stauber,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
STAUBER, Judge
On appeal from the denial of his mo tion to modify his spousal-maintenance
obligation, appellant-husband argues that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion because respondent-wife’s move to Mexico, where the cost of living
2
is considerably lower, supports his claim of a substantial change in circumstances
rendering the existing maintenance order unreasonable and unfair. We affirm.
FACTS
In December 2012, the marr iage between appellant Jose Moran and respondent
Yolanda Jimenez was dissolved. Pursuant to the judgment and decree, appellant was
ordered to pay respondent $1,585 per month in spousal maintenance. The parties later
negotiated a modification, which reduced appellant’s maintenance obligation to $1,400 per
month.
On August 17, 2015, appellan t moved to terminate or modify his current spousal-
maintenance obligation “based on the substantially changed circumstances of . . .
respondent moving out of the State of Minnesota to live in Mexico.” Appellant claimed that
respondent’s move to Mexico rendered the existing maintenance obligation unreasonable
and unfair because it resulted in a “substantial decrease in the need and the living expenses
of [respondent] given that she is living in a house for which she does not pay any rent or
mortgage,” and “the cost of living in Mexico is lower than that in Minnesota.” The district
court denied appellant’s motion, concluding that appellant “failed to make a showing that
respondent’s need substantially decreased.” This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
This court reviews the district court’s decision on spousal-maintenance
modification for an abuse of discretion. Hecker v. Hecker, 568 N.W.2d 705, 709-10
(Minn. 1997). The district court abuses its discretion if it makes findings unsupported by
the evidence or errs in applying the law. Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 & n.3
3
(Minn. 1997). We will uphold a district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002). “Findings of fact are
clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made.” Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Minn.
2008) (quotation omitted).
Before the district court may modify a spousal-maintenance award, the moving
party must provide clear proof that, after the spousal-maintenance obligation was
established or last modified, a substantial change of circumstances occurred that renders
the award unreasonable and unfair. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2 (Supp. 2015); Beck v.
Kaplan, 566 N.W.2d 723, 726 (Minn. 1997). Factors supporting maintenance
modification include “substantially increased or decreased gross income of an obligor or
obligee” and “substantially increased or decreased need of an obligor or obligee.” Minn.
Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2.
Appellant claims that after the part ies negotiated a reduction of appellant’s
spousal-maintenance obligation, respondent relocated to Mexico. He argues that because
the “cost of living in Mexico is lower than . . . in Minnesota,” there has been a substantial
change in circumstances that renders his existing maintenance obligation unreasonable
and unfair. Thus, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
his motion to modify his maintenance obligation.
We disagree. The district court found th at “[a]lthough respondent’s housing costs
decreased, as a blind 62-year old woman, [respondent’s] medical needs continue to be
substantial,” and “[i]n that regard, her needs have not changed.” This finding is
4
supported by the record. Although respondent appears to concede that she moved to
Mexico in order to “obtain free housing from a relative,” appellant presented no evidence
that respondent’s need has decreased. In fact, the record indicates that appellant failed to
conduct any discovery to substantiate his claim, including evidence regarding the
differences in the cost of living in Mexico. Instead, the record reflects that respondent’s
needs due to her blindness prompted her to move to Mexico in order to obtain affordable
assistance with her “day-to-day affairs.” Moreover, the record reflects that respondent
continues to incur substantial expenses related to her additional medical problems. And,
as the district court found, appellant presented no evidence of a reduction in his income.
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to
modify his spousal-maintenance obligation.
Affirmed.