In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A16-1970

In re the Marriage of:
Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

David Victor Rucki,
Respondent,

County of Dakota, intervenor,
Respondent.

Filed August 21, 2017
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19AV-FA-11-1273

Michelle Lowney MacDonald, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Lisa M. Elliott, Elliott Law Offices, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent David
Rucki)

James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, James W. Donehower, Assistant County
Attorney, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Dakota County)

2
Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Smith, John, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges a series of child -support orders, arguing that the presiding
child-support magistrate (CSM) erred by (1) failing to retroactively modify appellant’s
support obligation to the date that the motion was filed , (2) failing to make adverse
inferences against respondent when addressing respondent’s gross income , (3) ordering
appellant to pay temporary basic child support before her criminal sentencing, (4) imputing
income to appellant improperly and failing to assess her ability to pay support, (5) ignoring
respondent’s actual gross income in calculating the child-support obligation, and (6) ruling
prematurely on modification prior to appellant’s sentencing hearing and conditioning her
support obligation on future incarceration. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Sandra Sue Grazzini -Rucki and respondent David Victor Rucki are the
parents of five children, three of whom are minors. At the time of the dissolution in 2013,
the district court awarded Rucki sole physical and sole legal custody of all five children.
Based on findings that Grazzini -Rucki’s gross monthly income was $4,126 and that

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Co urt of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

3
Rucki’s gross monthly income was $5,000, the district court ordered Grazzini-Rucki to pay
$1,020 per month in basic child support.1
On June 29, 2015, Grazzini -Rucki moved for modification of child support. The
district court summarily denied the motion in August 2015 and directed Grazzini-Rucki to
present her request for modification to a CSM. Grazzini-Rucki filed another modification
motion on November 17, 2015, citing her October 18, 2015 arrest and subsequent
incarceration as rea sons for her inability to work. On February 1, 2 016, the CSM
determined that modification was warranted because Grazzini -Rucki had experienced a
change of circumstances due to her incarceration. 2 The CSM reduced her support
obligation to $0 per month effective January 1, 2016. The CSM also decided that Grazzini-
Rucki’s support obligation could be modified nunc pro tunc pending a review hearing
scheduled in April 2016.
Both p arties filed motions prior to the review hearing. Rucki requested that
Grazzini-Rucki’s support obligation be reinstated because she had been released from jail
in late February 2016. Grazzini -Rucki requested that the review hearing be continued to
allow for further discovery. The CSM conducted the review hearing and issued an or der
on April 5, 2016. The CSM found that she lacked sufficient information regarding the
parties’ respective incomes to make a child -support determination and ordered the pa rties

1 In July 2014, the district court modified Grazzini-Rucki’s support obligation to $904 per
month to account for the emancipation of the parties’ oldest child.

2 Three different CSMs conducted hearings and issued orders during the relevant portions
of this proceeding.

4
to exchange their relevant financial documents. 3 The CSM continued the revi ew hearing
to August 11, 2016.
On August 1, 2016, Grazzini -Rucki sought another continuance of the review
hearing because the sentencing hearing in her criminal matter was scheduled for September
21, 2016. The hearing proceeded as scheduled but the CSM ultimately continued the
review hearing to September 15, 2016. The CSM issued an order at the August 2016
hearing, directing Rucki to submit a 2014 corporate tax return and to allow Grazzini -
Rucki’s attorney an opportunity to view a copy of the tax return. Because Grazzini-Rucki
was no longer incarcerated, the CSM also ordered her to pay $50 per month in temporary
basic child support.
Before the September 15, 2016 hearing, Grazzini -Rucki filed a motion for review
of the CSM’s August 11, 2016 order and requested that the CSM make adverse inferences
against Rucki for failing to supply his financial information. Both pa rties testified at the
September 2016 hearing. Rucki testified that he receives medical assistance for the three
minor children and that his current income is about “60 grand” per year. Grazzini -Rucki
testified that her employment status with the airline she worked for was unknown and that
she had applied for approximately 30 to 40 jobs but had not received any employment
offers.

3 In June 2016, Grazzini-Rucki filed a motion requesting that Rucki be found in contempt
of court and to compel Rucki to provide discovery responses . Rucki filed a responsive
motion asking that Grazzini -Rucki’s motion be denied and for a protective order to keep
his financial information confidential. In late July 2016, the district court granted Rucki’s
motion and denied Grazzini-Rucki’s motion in all respects.

5
The CSM issued two orders on October 13, 2016. In the first order responding to
Grazzini-Rucki’s motion for review, the CSM affirmed the August 11, 2016 order except
for a minor amendment to the order’s preamble. In the second order, the CSM imputed
potential income to Grazzini -Rucki and found that she had the ability to earn $4,1 43 in
gross monthly income. The CSM also found that Rucki’s gross income was $5,000 per
month. Based on these findings and pursuant to the child -support guidelines, the CSM
ordered Grazzini -Rucki to pay $975 per month in basic child support. The order also
acknowledged Grazzini -Rucki’s sentencing hearing and provided that her support
obligation would be suspended if and when she is incarcerated. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Grazzini-Rucki alleges several errors in three separate child-support orders filed on
February 1, 2016; August 11, 2016; and October 13, 2016. A CSM issued each of the three
orders as part of these proceedings conducted in the expedited child -support process. See
generally Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 351 -379. A CSM may be assigned in a IV -D case going
through the expedited process and is authorized to establish, modify, or enforce child
support. Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn. App. 2000). Because Rucki
receives public assistance in the form of medical assistance for the three minor children,
the CSM has jurisdiction to preside over this IV-D case. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd.
10 (2016) (defining a case as IV-D when “a party has assigned to the state rights to child
support because of the receipt of public assistance”).
We apply the same standard for reviewing a CSM’s order as applied to a district
court’s order regarding child support. Ludwigson v. Ludwigson, 642 N.W.2d 441, 445-46

6
(Minn. App. 2002). Accordingly, a CSM is afforded broad discretion in making child -
support determinations. Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814, 820 (Minn. 1999). But we will
find an abuse of this discretion if the CSM makes an erroneous conclusion that goes against
logic and facts on the record. Id.
I. The February 1, 2016 Order and Effective Date of Modification
Grazzini-Rucki first contends that the CSM who issued the February 1, 2016 order
erred by failing to modify her child -support obligation retroactively to July 1, 2015, the
date she filed her initial motion. Respondent Dakota County suggests that we are
procedurally foreclosed from addressing this issue because Grazzini-Rucki did not request
the district court’s review of the February 1, 2016 order and did not immediately appeal.
The county also notes that Grazzini-Rucki did not mention the issue of retroactivity in any
of her pleadings filed in March and August of 2016. But a temporary order regarding child
support is generally not appealable. See Minn. Stat. § 518.131, subd. 1(c) (2016) (stating
that temporary child-support orders are not final); Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(a) (stating
that this court generally reviews only final orders). And this court “may review any order
affecting the order from which the appeal is taken.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04. Because
the February 1, 2016 order set a review hearing at which Grazzini -Rucki’s support
obligation could be further modified, it constitutes a temporary order that was not
immediately appealable.
We will review this issue but note that Grazzini-Rucki directly appealed to this court
without first requesting the district court’s review of the CSM’s order. A party may appeal
from a CSM’s order without first filing a motion for review to the district court. Minn. R.

7
Gen. Pract. 378.01. Because Grazinni-Rucki did not file a motion to review this issue, our
review is limited to whether the evidence supports the CSM’s factual findings and whether
the findings support the CSM’s conclusions of law. Davis v. Davis, 631 N.W.2d 822, 825
(Minn. App. 2001).
A. Retroactivity
In February 2016, the CSM determined that because Grazzini -Rucki was
incarcerated at the time, her circumstances had substantially changed, justifying a
modification of her support obligation. The CSM ordered that her support obligation be
modified to $0 per month effective on January 1, 2016. Grazzini -Rucki argues that the
CSM should have modified her support obligation retroactively to July 1, 2015, because
she filed and served her modification motion on June 29, 2015. She relies on Minn. Stat .
§ 518A.39, subd. 2(f) (2016), which provides that “[a] modification . . . may be made
retroactive only with respect to any period during which the petitioning party has pending
a motion for modification . . . .”
But, as both Rucki and the county emphas ize, that motion was no longer pending
after the district court issued an order on August 31, 2015. The district court summarily
denied Grazzini-Rucki’s motion and directed her to “present this request to an appropriate
magistrate.” Even if Grazzini-Rucki argues that the district court was merely referring her
to the CSM and that the district court did not effectively deny her motion, the motion could
not be considered pending because she was required to take further action to have the

8
request heard by the CSM.4 We conclude that Grazzini-Rucki’s June 2015 motion was no
longer pending and that the CSM did not err by not making her modified support obligation
retroactive to July 1, 2015. Cf. Hicks v. Hicks, 533 N.W.2d 885, 886 (Minn. App. 1995)
(concluding that a motion was no longer pending after the district court’s “general
dismissal” of the proceeding).
Grazzini-Rucki argues alternatively that, at the very least, the CSM should have
retroactively modified her support obligation to December 1, 2015 becau se she filed
another motion for modification on November 17, 2015. As discussed previously, the
statute explicitly states that “[a] modification . . . may be made retroactive only with respect
to any period during which the petitioning party has pending a motion for modification
. . . .” Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(f) (emphasis added). The word “may” is permissive
and indicates discretionary authority in this context. See Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 643
(Minn. 2009) (interpreting the 2008 version of the statute). “A modification of support is
generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the
responding party.” Bormann v. Bormann, 644 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. App. 2002). But
the CSM has broad discretion in setting the effective date of a modified child -support
obligation. Borcherding v. Borcherding , 566 N.W.2d 90, 93 ( Minn. App. 1997). For
instance in Finch v. Marusich, the district court modified the appellant’s support obligation

4 At a hearing on November 17, 2015, Grazzini-Rucki requested that the district court take
her child-support motion under advisement. The district court explained that Grazzini -
Rucki had “to file something with the magistrate” in order to have that motion addressed.
The district court reiterated that the motion was previously denied and that the appropriate
mechanism to resolve the issue would involve a CSM.

9
retroactively to June 1, 1989, even though the appellant filed his modification motion in
March 1989. 457 N.W.2d 767, 770 (Minn. App. 1990). This court held that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in setting the effective date. Id. Similar to our decision
in Finch, we conclude that the CSM did not abuse his discretion by establishing January 1,
2016 as the effective date.
B. Nunc Pro Tunc
The CSM’s February 1, 2016 order also stated that Grazzini -Rucki’s support
obligations “may be modified nunc pro tunc to January 1, 2016, at the scheduled Review
Hearing.” Grazzini -Rucki contends that the term “ nunc pro tunc ” should not be used in
modification proceedings because it does not appear in the child -support statutes. Her
argument implies that the u se of this term allows a CSM to circumvent the modification
statute and review support decisions retroactively.
Nunc pro tunc, a Latin term meaning “now for then,” describes a “retroactive legal
effect through a court’s inherent power.” Black’s Law Dict ionary 1237 (10th ed. 20 14).
A nunc pro tunc order may be used for correcting an omission of the district court or fixing
a clerical error. County of Washington v. TMT Land V, LLC, 791 N.W.2d 132, 135 (Minn.
App. 2010). One purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry is to correct the record, “not to supply[]
judicial action.” Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288, 298 N.W. 452,
453 (1941). Contrary to Grazzini -Rucki’s assertions, the term is grounded in Minnesota
caselaw and does not circumvent the modification statute because it is limited to correcting
errors.

10
Rucki and the county contend that this language was appropriate due to the evolving
circumstances regarding Grazzini -Rucki’s incarceration and the p arties’ difficulty in
conducting discovery. The decision to issue a nunc pro tunc order is discretionary. TMT
Land V, 791 N.W.2d at 135. Due to the lack of information regarding the parties’ income
and Grazzini -Rucki’s unsettled employment status, it was reasonable for the CSM to
recognize that the February 1, 2016 order may need to be corrected to more fully account
for the parties’ financial circumstances. The CSM did not abuse his discretion in using this
nunc pro t unc language to permit its reconsider ation of the modification issue at a later
date.
II. The August 11, 2016 Order and the Temporary Support Obligation
Grazzini-Rucki argues that the CSM erred by establishing a temporary support
obligation of $50 per mont h in the August 11, 2016 order. She asserts that the CSM did
not make any of the necessary findings in computing child support and failed to recognize
that she is an indigent individual receiving public assistance. Rucki asserts that the issue
is moot be cause the October 13, 2016 order, which sets Grazzini -Rucki’s permanent
support obligation, supersedes the temporary support obligation established in the August
11, 2016 order. We agree.
The August 11, 2016 order is labeled a temporary order and states that Grazzini-
Rucki’s “support obligation shall be reviewed at the next hearing and if warranted may be
changed nunc pro tunc.” The October 13, 2016 order increases her support obligation and
retroactively applies this modified obligation to April 1, 2016. The increased modification
obligation amount therefore encompasses the temporary amount ordered in August 2016 ,

11
rendering that order essentially null and void . An issue on appeal is moot if, during the
appeal, “an event occurs making a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of relief
impossible.” In re Paternity of B.J.H., 573 N.W.2d 99, 105 (Minn. App. 1998) (citing In
re Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, Inc. , 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn. 1984)).
Although the October 13, 2016 order is not an event that occurred during the appeal, we
consider this issue moot. Even if Grazzini-Rucki is correct that the CSM erred, she would
not receive any relief because we are affirming the CSM’s October 13, 2016 order,
discussed in more detail below.
III. The October 13, 2016 Order and Grazzini-Rucki’s Income
After the full review hearing in September 2016, the CSM established Grazzini -
Rucki’s basic child -support obligation in one of the two October 13, 2016 orders. The
CSM imputed $4,143 per month in pot ential income to Grazzini -Rucki. This was the
amount she earned as a flight attendant as determined in the district court’s order in July
2014. The CSM found that while Grazzini -Rucki’s employment status at the airline was
unknown at the time, she was still capable of working as a flight attendant, and she did not
claim that her employment was terminated. Grazzini -Rucki raises a variety of objections
to assert that the CSM’s decision amounts to reversible error, including that (1) a child-
support determination does not require a finding that the children actually need support ,
(2) the CSM “obstru cted” her right to modification, (3) the CSM improperly imputed
income to her, (4) the CSM failed to determi ne the parties’ “actual” income, (5) the CSM
failed to properly apply the statutory analysis for calculating gross income and potential

12
income, (6) the CSM failed to consider her ability to pay , and (7) the CSM erroneously
adopted an earlier finding of income and ignored her actual income.
“To determine the presumptive child support obligation of a parent, the [district]
court shall . . . determine the gross income of each parent.” Newstrand v. Arend, 869
N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015). Gross income
is broadly construed and may include a parties’ potential income. Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a)
(2016). A district court’s determination of a par ties’ income is a finding of fact that we
review for clear error. Newstrand, 869 N.W.2d at 685. A finding of fac t is clearly
erroneous if this court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000). In deciding
whether the findings are clearly erroneous, this court views the record in the light most
favorable to the CSM’s findings. Id. Due to the number of issues raised by Grazzini -
Rucki, we will attempt to address the distinct issues separately and the overlapping issues
together.
A. Finding of Need
Grazzini-Rucki asserts that the statutory analysis in calculating child support does
not require a showing of need. Grazzini -Rucki does not refer to the record regarding the
minor children’s needs nor does she appear to contend that the CSM erred in considering
the children’s basic needs. Because this claim does not create an issue, it does not present
a basis for reversal.

13
B. Right to Seek Modification
Grazzini-Rucki contends that the CSM obstructed her ability to seek modification
of her child -support obligation, vio lating Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 1 (2016). The
statute provides that, “[a]fter an order under this chapter or chapter 518 for maintenance or
support money . . . the [district] court may from time to time, on motion of either of the
parties . . . modify the order respecting the amount of maintenance or support money.”
Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 1. Grazzini-Rucki maintains that she has “no income or
assets” and that the CSM violated Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (2016), after the CSM
found a subst antial change of circumstances in the February 1, 2016 order . But the
February 1, 2016 order explicitly states that Grazzini -Rucki’s support obligation was
subject to change after the review hearing originally scheduled in April 2016. The review
hearing was continued twice before the CSM conducted the full hearing in September
2016. The modification of her support obligation in October 2016 is entirely consistent
with the CSM’s order in February 2016. And as the county emphasizes, Grazzini -Rucki
filed t his motion in November 2015; this motion was addressed at several different
hearings. There is no merit to her claim that the CSM “obstructed” her right to seek
modification.
C. Potential Income and Ability to Pay
Grazzini-Rucki argues that the CSM erred by imputing potential income to her
because the CSM (1) disregarded her actual income , (2) failed to make a proper statutory
analysis, and (3) improperly adopted a level of income determined by the district court in
a prior order. A CSM must calculate a par ent’s income based on her potential income if

14
the “parent is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full -
time basis, or there is no direct evidence of any income.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1
(2016). One method for calculati ng a parent’s potential income considers “the parent’s
probable earnings level based on employment potential, recent work history, and
occupational qualifications in light of prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in
the community.” Id., subd. 2(1) (2016).
Grazzini-Rucki asserts that she had no ability to pay child support because her
employment with the airline was “in flux” and that the CSM made “vague, generalized and
conclusory findings” that did not justify imputing income under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32,
subd. 1.5 But these assertions misconstrue the record , particularly the evidence admitted
during the September 2016 hearing. The CSM found that after Grazzini -Rucki was
released from jail, she submitted a document in March 2016 that stated that she currently
worked as a flight attendant. Grazzini -Rucki testified, and the CSM acknowledged, that
her status of employment was unknown at the time of the September 2016 hearing. But
Grazzini-Rucki did not provide any evidence that her empl oyment status had changed or
that her employment had been terminated after March 2016. There was also no indication
that her pending criminal sentence barred employment at the airline . Grazzini -Rucki

5 Grazzini-Rucki also states that the CSM was “[p]arroting earlier findings verbatim” from
the April 5, 2016 order without making independent findings regarding her employment
status. The county contends that the CSM used these previous findings to highlight that
there was nothing in the record indicating that Grazzini-Rucki’s employment had changed.
Because several different CSMs presided over th is matter, it was reasonable for the CSM
to recite language from the earlier April 5, 2016 order in establishing a clear understanding
of the parties’ circumstances and the case’s procedural history.

15
testified that she had applied for approximately 30 to 40 jobs, including at fast-food
restaurants and home -improvement stores, but said that she had not received any job
offers.6 The CSM reasonably determined that Grazzini-Rucki did not show that she could
not work full -time. See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App.
2003) (stating that “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [that
party’s] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide
the district court with the evi dence that would allow the district court to fully address the
question”). We conclude that t he CSM’s imputing of potential income was appropriate
under these circumstances.
Grazzini-Rucki also appears to suggest that she cannot be considered voluntar ily
unemployed or underemployed because she was incarcerated. She is correct that a person
is not voluntarily unemployed or underemployed if it is due to incarceration. Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.32, subd. 3(3) (2016). But the CSM found that she was released fr om jail in
February 2016 and therefore was no longer incarcerated. Grazzini -Rucki next argues that
the CSM “already concluded that she was entitled to a modification,” apparently referring
to the February 1, 2016 order. But as discussed previously, the February 1, 2016 order was
temporary in nature and emphasized that the order could be further modified after a review
hearing.
Grazzini-Rucki alleges that the CSM used an improper methodology in calculating
her potential income. The CSM decided that Grazzini-Rucki has the ability to earn a gross

6 Grazzini-Rucki alleged that she created a list of all the jobs for which she had applied .
But this list was never admitted into evidence.

16
monthly income of $4,143, the amount determined in a distri ct court order from July 17,
2014. Grazzini-Rucki argues that this amount is significantly more than what she earned
from 2011 to 2015. She refers to he r March 2016 affidavit that references her W -2
statements from those five years. The statements from 2014 and 2015 indicate that she
earned gross income of $24,405.89 and $23,566.72, respectively.
In the July 17, 2014 order regarding an earlier modifica tion of child support, the
district court reviewed three of the W -2 statements (2011, 2012, and 2013) that Grazzini -
Rucki refers to in her March 2016 affidavit. But the district court also considered a March
2014 paycheck stub in which Grazzini-Rucki received regular pay for a 40-hour week. The
district court found that because the paycheck stub best reflected the amount that she was
able to earn when she was working full-time, her gross monthly income was $4,143.12. In
a November 25, 2013 order, the district court reviewed five paycheck stubs from May 2013
to July 2013 and found that Grazzini-Rucki’s income was approximately $4,126 per month.
The district court also found that the parties stipulated in August 2012 that Grazzini-Rucki
was able to earn $5,000 per month. Due to the difficulty in ascertaining Grazzini-Rucki’s
actual income, it was reasonable for the CSM to refer to th ese findings from the district
court as an accurate measure of what she is capable of earning as a flight attendant on a
full-time basis.
Even if Grazzini -Rucki’s affidavit presents evidence supportive of a different
finding regarding her gross income, that does not necessarily mean the CSM’s finding is
clearly erroneous. See Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d at 474 (“That the record might support
findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings

17
are defective.”). Based on this record and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
CSM’s findings, the CSM did not clearly err by determining that Grazzini -Rucki’s gross
monthly income is $4,143.
IV. The October 13, 2016 Order and Rucki’s Income
Grazzini-Rucki also contends that the CSM erred in the child -support order dated
October 13, 2016, by failing to draw adverse inferences against Rucki when calculating his
gross monthly income. Her motion for review filed in August 2016 contained a request for
an adverse inference . In cases involving a child -support determination, each party is
obligated to “disclos[e] all sources of gross income.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.28(a) (2016). “A
party has a duty to supply financial information in a proper fashion to the [district] court.
Failure to do so justifies adverse inferences.” Spooner v. Spooner, 410 N.W.2d 412, 4 13
(Minn. App. 1987). Grazzini -Rucki alleges that Rucki failed to provide sufficient
information concerning his income, therefore demonstrating that an adverse inference was
appropriate.
At the September 2016 hearing, Rucki testified that he makes “60 g rand” per year.
Based on his testimony and two paystubs confirming that testimony, the CSM found that
he earned $5,000 in gross income per month. 7 Despite Grazzini-Rucki’s assertions to the
contrary, the CSM did not ignore the evidence. The CSM acknowle dged the discovery
issues in the case and determined that Grazzini-Rucki was using her discovery requests as
a delay tactic. Indeed, the district court in July 2016 granted Rucki’s motion for a

7 Grazzini-Rucki claims that the CSM erred by taking these paystubs at “face value.” It is
unclear how this would constitute an error justifying reversal.

18
protective order permitting his financial information to remain confidential. The CSM did
not err by not drawing adverse inferences against Rucki in determining his gross monthly
income.
Similar to her adverse-inference argument, Grazzini-Rucki contends that the CSM
ignored Rucki’s actual gross income in calculating the support obligation. She asserts that
the CSM did not evaluate Rucki’s pre vious self -employment income. This argument
centers on the CSM’s alleged failure to consider a 2014 corporate tax return from Kang
Contracting.8 The tax return stated that the company earned $1,427,664 in gross receipts.
But Rucki testified that , at the time of the September 2016 hearing, he no longer had an
ownership interest in Kang Contracting. The CSM therefore determined that the tax return
had no effect on the calculation of Rucki’s income because he was not self-employed. See
Minn. Stat. § 518A.30 (2016) (“[I]ncome from self-employment or operation of a business
. . . is defined as gross receipts minus costs of goods sold minus ordinary and necessary
expenses required for self-employment or business operation.”).
Rucki testified that his only source of income is through his employment at TL
Rucki Trucking, which is owned by his sister. He testified that from this employment, he
earns approximately $5,000 per month in gross income. The CSM found this testimony to
be credible and consistent with his paystubs. We defer to the CSM’s credibility
determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988). Because the

8 Grazzini-Rucki also submitted partial corporate tax returns from Rucki Trucking Co. for
several years between 2001 and 2010. Rucki testified that he sold this company to his
sister. The CSM consid ered this evidence irrelevant because it was outdated and did not
accurately reflect Rucki’s current financial circumstances.

19
CSM’s finding is consistent with the evide nce presented, the CSM did not err in deciding
not to impute any potential income to Rucki.
Grazzini-Rucki also argues that the CSM wrongfully created a support order that
compelled “an indigent parent” to pay support to “a wealthy parent.” 9 She maintains that
the CSM acted unfairly by imputing potential income to her but not to Rucki. But the CSM
found that Rucki is not voluntarily underemployed and therefore the CSM was not required
to calculate potential income under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1; see also Welsh v.
Welsh, 775 N.W.2d 364, 367 (Minn. App. 2009). And as the county notes, the decision to
impute potential income to one pa rty is based on the financial circumstances of that par ty
and is entirely distinct from the calculation of the other pa rty’s income. See Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.32, subd. 1. Minnesota courts have imputed potential income to one parent but not
the other parent in several cases . See, e.g. , Newstrand, 869 N.W.2d at 685 -86. We
conclude that the CSM did not abuse its discretion by imputing potential income to
Grazzini-Rucki but not Rucki.

9 Grazzini-Rucki again raises her alleged inability to pay any child support as a reason
highlighting the CSM’s alleged unfairne ss. As discussed previously, this assertion is not
supported by the evidence and neglects to account for her responsibility as a parent to
support her minor children. See Barnier v. Wells, 476 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Minn. App. 1991)
(“Parents have a ‘legal and natural duty’ to take care of their children until they are old
enough to take care of themselves.”).

20
V. The October 13, 2016 Order and Conditional Suspension of Child Support
Grazzini-Rucki argues that the CSM erred by failing to continue the September
2016 hearing to a date after her sentencing hearing and by conditionally suspending her
support obligation upon her possible future incarceration.
Grazzini-Rucki sought a continuance of the August 2016 review hearing because of
her sentencing hearing scheduled on September 21, 2016. The CSM continue d the matter
to September 15, 2016, six days before the sentencing hearing. Generally, whether to
continue a hearing is within the CSM’s discretion. Richter v. Richter , 625 N.W.2d 4 90,
495 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
The record reflects that Grazzini -Rucki’s modification motion had been pending
since its filing in November 2015. Different CSMs had heard the matter on several
occasions but had only addres sed the issue on a temporary basis due to discovery
difficulties between the pa rties. Grazzini-Rucki made at least three continuance requests
after filing the motion. The CSM construed these requests as an att empt to delay the
proceeding. The record also suggests that Grazzini -Rucki had either ignored prior court
orders or failed to comply with court orders in a timely manner. And it is clear from the
record that the CSM made some effort at the August 2016 hearing to coordinate a hearing
date that would reasonably fit the parties’ schedules. The CSM did not abuse her discretion
in continuing the review hearing to September 15, 2016.
After the September 2016 hearing, the CSM issued an order directing Grazzini -
Rucki to pay $975 per month in basic child support. In light of Grazzini-Rucki’s sentencing
hearing, the CSM decided that “payment of support should be suspended if and when

21
[Grazzini-Rucki] is incarcerated and a review hearing should be held after release from any
incarceration concerning the sole issue of whether support should be reinstated.” In
Anderson v. Anderson, this court decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by temporarily reducing an obligor’s child -support payments but providing for later
automatic reinstatement of the pre-reduction amount. 421 N.W.2d 410, 412 (Minn. App.
1988). Grazzini -Rucki argues that the CSM erred in conditioning suspension of her
support obligation upon incarceration. Her argument relies significantly on an unpublished
opinion from this court. See Moskal v. Moskal, No. C2-99-580, 1999 WL 1216340 (Minn.
App. Dec. 21, 1999). Unpublished opinions are of limited value in deciding an appeal and
are not precedential. Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Even if we consider Moskal, it is distinguishable from this case. In Moskal, this
court held that the district court inappropriately ordered automatic reinstatement of the
father’s support obligation to its pre -incarceration amount, immediately following the
father’s release from prison. 1999 WL 1216340, at *2-3. Here, the CSM ordered Grazzini-
Rucki’s support obligation to be suspended upon incarceration and instructed the county
to file a motion to revisit the issue upon her release. Rather than automatically reinstating
the support obligation, as was the district court’s error in Moskal, the CSM instructed the
county to move for a review hearing upon release to determine whether the obligation
should be reinstated.
While the CSM may have been able to avoid this issue altogether if sh e had
scheduled the review hearing after the sentencing hearing, the order requiring suspension
of support upon incarceration adequately considers the parties’ unique circumstances and

22
provides Grazzini-Rucki with a temporary reprieve of her support obliga tion if and when
she is incarcerated. We conclude that the CSM’s solution regarding this potential issue
was reasonable and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.