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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A16-1273

In re the Marriage of:

Larry A. Letsinger, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Lori A. Letsinger,
Respondent.

Filed May 22, 2017
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge

Wright County District Court
File No. 86-FA-13-3456

John DeWalt, DeWalt, Chawla + Saksena, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Cara A. Wittwer, Rebecca S. Wanous, C. W ittwer Law Office, Ltd., Delano, Minnesota
(for respondent)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Sche llhas, Judge; and
Smith, John, Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, 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
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to terminate or,
alternatively, decrease his spousal-maintenance obligation. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Larry Letsinger (husband) and respondent Lori Letsinger (wife) married
in May 1989 and dissolved their marriage in October 2014.1 At the time of the dissolution,
husband was 50 years of age and wife was 52 years of age. The district court found
husband’s gross monthly income to be $7,5 00 and his reasonable and necessary monthly
expenses to be $2,489. The court found wife’s gross monthly income to be $1,673.75 and
her reasonable and necessary monthly expe nses to be $3,500. Under the dissolution
judgment, husband is obligated to pay wi fe $2,000 per month in permanent spousal
maintenance.
On February 25, 2015, husband’s employmen t as a vice president of sales ended
when his employer eliminated his position. On July 31, husband m oved to terminate or,
alternatively, reduce his spousal-maintenance obligation. At that time, he was unemployed
but actively seeking employment.
On August 17, 2015, husband began new employment as a sales executive. His
employer’s offer letter describes his compensati on as an annual base salary of $60,000,
paid weekly, and a monthly automobile a nd mobile-phone allowance of $660. Four

1 In November 2014, the district court amended the dissolution judgment to correct clerical
errors.

3
potential types of commission income are also available to husba nd. According to the
employer’s vice president and chief financial o fficer, sales representatives typically start
to earn “regular and consistent commissions” in about 12–18 months. Based on husband’s
most recent paycheck submitted to the di strict court, husba nd had received total
commissions since August 17, 2015, of $674.34 as of February 25, 2016. The court found
that husband “will begin earni ng regular and consistent co mmissions in the summer [of]
2016.”
In a January 8, 2016 affidavit, husband in formed the district court that his new
employer paid him a one-time signing bonus in the amount of $8,500, paid weekly until
January 2016. 2 After automatic wage withholding for payment of husband’s spousal-
maintenance obligation began, husband informed the court, in a March 4, 2016 affidavit,
that the signing bonus was $10,000, not $8,500. He also told the court that he would receive
his last bonus payment in his April 3, 2016 paycheck.
In considering husband’s sp ousal-maintenance modification motion, the district
court found that wife had $3 ,490 in reasonable monthly expenses and monthly gross
income of $1,992, which represented an increase of $318.25 since the dissolution
judgment. The court found that husband ha d $2,763.70 in reasonable monthly expenses
and that husband’s “actual monthly gross earn ings in 2015 averaged $7,046 per month.”
The court denied husband’s motion, concluding that husband’s decrease in gross monthly

2 Neither husband’s employer’s offer letter nor its February 22, 2016 letter, explaining
husband’s compensation, contains any mention of a signing bonus.

4
income from $7,500 at the time of the dissolution to $7,046 wa s not sufficient to create a
presumption that a substantial change in circumstances existed that rendered husband’s
spousal-maintenance obligation unreasonable and unfair, and that husband also failed to
demonstrate an actual change in circumstances showing his obligation to be unreasonable
and unfair.3
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Husband argues that the district court erre d in concluding that he did not meet his
burden of proving the existenc e of a substantial change in circumstances—his decreased
income—that rendered his spousal-mainten ance obligation unreasonable and unfair. A
decision to modify spousal maintenance is discretionary with the district court and requires
the moving party to show both: (1) substantia lly changed circumstances and; (2) that the
changed circumstances make the existing award unreasonable and unfair. See Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (stating that “[t]he terms of an order respecting maintenance or
support may be modified upon a showing of one or more of [eight circumstances], any of
which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair” ), (b)(5) (stating that a presumption of a
substantial change in circumstances arises, “and the terms of a current support order shall
be rebuttably presumed to be unreasonable and unfair if . . . the gross income of an obligor
or obligee has decreased by at least 20 percen t through no fault or choice of the party”)

3 The district court temporarily reduced hu sband’s spousal-maintenance obligation “to
$1,500 from August 2015 thr ough February 2016,” because husband had “a lapse in
employment due to no fault of his own that re sulted in decreased earnings for a period of
months.”

5
(2016); see also Youker v. Youker, 661 N.W.2d 266, 269 (Minn. App. 2003) (explaining
that the moving party carries the burden of proof in demonstr ating that there has been a
substantial change in circumstances), review denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003).
Appellate courts review a district court’ s decision regarding whether to modify an
existing maintenance award for an abuse of discretion. Gossman v. Gossman, 847 N.W.2d
718, 721 (Minn. App. 2014). A district court abuses its di scretion regarding maintenance
if its findings of fact are uns upported by the record or if it improperly applies the law.
Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997). This court views the evidence in
the light most favorable to the district c ourt’s findings and defers to its credibility
determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
Gross monthly income
Husband first argues that the district c ourt’s finding that he had gross monthly
income of $7,046 is clearly erroneous. “A di strict court’s determination of income for
maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
Melius v. Melius, 765 N.W.2d 411, 414 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted).
The district court used husband’s Decemb er 24, 2015 paycheck to calculate his
gross monthly income because: (1) his income for 2014 and 2015 did not accurately reflect
his financial situation at the time of the he aring because he had been unemployed for a
period of time during both years; and (2) his commission income at similar jobs had
historically been a significant source of income but was speculative at that point. The court
calculated husband’s monthly gross earnings by dividing his total gross income reflected
on his December 24, 2015 pay stub ($29,292.56) by the number of weeks worked through

6
that pay stub (18 weeks) and multip lying the result by 4.33 weeks. See Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.29(d) (2016) (stating that, “Gross income may be calculated on either an annual or
monthly basis. Weekly income shall be tran slated to monthly inco me by multiplying the
weekly income by 4.33.”). Husband argues that the district court miscalculated his income
because by December 24, 2015, he had worked almost 19 full weeks, “rather than exactly
18 weeks as assumed by the court.” We are not persuaded.
A review of the record confirms that husband’s December 24, 2015 paycheck
reflected pay for 18 weeks of work. The pay-period end date on husband’s paycheck is
December 20, 2015, which marks the end of husband’s 18th week of work. While it may
be true that on December 24, 2015, husband had worked more than 18 weeks, the relevant
question is how many weeks of work are reflec ted in the amount of year-to-date regular
gross earnings listed on husband’s December 24, 2015 paycheck, not how many weeks he
had actually worked when he received his December 24, 2015 paycheck.
Husband next argues that the district cour t erred in calculating his gross income
because the district court included his one-time signing bonus of $10,000 in the calculation
of his income. We conclude that the district court properly includ ed husband’s signing
bonus in the calculation of his gross monthl y income because, contrary to husband’s
argument, he received the bonus as a periodi c payment weekly over a number of weeks.
Gross income includes:
any form of periodic payment to an individual , including, but
not limited to, salaries, wages, commissions, self-employment
income under section 518A.30, workers’ compensation,
unemployment benefits, annuity payments, military and naval
retirement, pension and disability payments, spousal

7
maintenance received under a previous order or the current
proceeding, Social Security or veterans benefits provided for a
joint child under section 518A.31, and potential income under
section 518A.32.
Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2016) (emphasis a dded). The statute does not define periodic
payment, but, according to Black’s Law Dictionary , a periodic payment is, “[o]ne of a
series of payments made over time instead of a one-time payment for the full amount.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 1310 (10th ed. 2014); cf. Black’s Law Dictionary 1310 (10th ed.
2014) (defining a lump-sum payment as, “[a] payment of a large amount all at once, as
opposed to a series of smaller payments over time”). And this court has previously
explained that “[b]onuses which provide a depe ndable source of income may properly be
included in calculation of future income.” Lynch v. Lynch, 411 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn.
App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Oct. 30, 1987). A bonus paid out weekly over a period
of time is a dependable source of income.
Moreover, we note that the district court concluded that even if husband correctly
claimed that his income would decrease on April 1, 2016, he was eligible to begin receiving
commission income in February 2016. And we agree with the court that, “[e]ven if the
commissions [were] not as substantial as they will be in the future , [husband’s] earnings
history with Intraworks since August 2015 de monstrates his continued ability to meet his
$2,000 spousal maintenance obligation.” We th erefore conclude that the court did not
clearly err in finding that husband’s gross monthly income was $7,046.

8
Tax effects
Second, husband argues that the district court erred by failing to consider the tax
effects on his income when considering the income available to him from which to pay
spousal maintenance. Husband’ s argument is unavailing. Husb and provided the district
court with no evidence regardi ng the tax effects on his income. See Thiele v. Stich , 425
N.W.2d 580, 582–83 (Minn. 1 988) (“An appellate court may not base its decision on
matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and
received in evidence below.”).
The district court did not abuse its disc retion by concluding that husband failed to
prove the existence of a substantial change in circumstances that rendered his spousal-
maintenance award unreasonable and unfair.
Affirmed.