Marjorie A. Gomes, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-2027

Marjorie A. Gomes,
Respondent,

vs.

James D. Meyer,
Appellant,

County of Clay, intervenor,
Respondent.

Filed October 22, 2018
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Clay County District Court
File No. 14-FA-12-913

Marjorie A. Gomes, Sabin, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

James D. Meyer, Layton, Utah (pro se appellant)

Brian J. Melton, Clay County Attorney, Jenny M. Samarzja , Assistant County Attorney,
Moorhead, Minnesota (for respondent county)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Bjorkman, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
In t his appeal following remand, appellant -husband challenges a child -support
magistrate’s (CSM) application of Georgia law to determine the accrued interest on his
spousal-maintenance arrears. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant James D. Meyer and respondent Marjorie A. Gomes’s 21-year marriage
was dissolved in 2009 in Georgia. The Georgia court ordered husband to pay wife spousal
maintenance in the amount of $2,500 per month through 2030. During the marriage,
husband was the sole provider for wife and their seven children. After wife moved with
the children to Minnesota, the Georgia dissolution judgment was registered in Minnesota.
In 2013, husband petitioned to terminate his spousal-maintenance obligation. Upon
wife’s motion, the district court issued an order to show cause regarding husband’s failure
to pay maintenance and child support. Respondent Clay County intervened with regard to
child support. The district court found that husband was unemployed in 2011 and
accumulated total arrears of $74,657.48 before obtaining new employment with an annual
salary of approximately $92,000 per year. By early 2016, he owed $70,948 in spousal
maintenance. The parties continued to contest numerous issues, and in 2016 wife brought
two appeals to this court, which were consolidated.
In September 2017, this court released Gomes v. Meyer, Nos. A16-1015, A16-1612,
2017 WL 3863822 (Minn. App. Sept. 5, 2017), addressing eight child-support and spousal-
maintenance issues. On the matter of accrued interest, we concluded that the CSM “had

3
. . . statutory authority to rule on [ wife’s] motion to apply Georgia law on the accrual of
interest to spousal-maintenance arrears.” 2017 WL 3863822, at *13. We remanded for the
CSM to rule on “whether Georgia law on accrual of interest to spousal maintenance applies
to the enforcement of the Georgia spousal-maintenance order in Minnesota.” Id.1
On remand, the CSM conducted a hearing in which both parents and the county
participated. The CSM determined that Minn. Stat. § 518C.604 (2016) governs the issue
of interest accrual, and “generally states that it is the law of the issuing state to compute
arrearages and the accrual of interest on the arrearages.” Because “[t]he state of Georgia
is the issuing state of [husband’s] spousal maintenance obligation,” the CSM directed the
county to “calculate and enforce [ husband’s] spousal maintenance obligation including
accrued interest based on Georgia substantive law.” Husband appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Husband argue s that the CSM erred by ruling that Georgia law governs the
calculation of interest on spousal -maintenance arrears. We review de novo questions of
law regarding spousal maintenance. Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Minn. App.
2009).
Minnesota la w provides that “the computation and payment of arrearages and
accrual of interest on the arrearages under [a] support order” are governed by “the law of
the issuing state.” Minn. Stat. § 518C.604(a)(2). Husband does not dispute that a Georgia
court issu ed the order setting his spousal -maintenance obligation. Accordingly, u nder

1 We also remanded the issue whether mother is voluntarily un deremployed. The CSM
determined she is not. Husband does not challenge that determination in this appeal.

4
Minnesota’s choice -of-law provision, Georgia law controls the accrual of interest on
husband’s spousal-maintenance arrears. Title 7 of the Georgia Code provides:
All awards, court orders, decrees, or judgments rendered
pursuant to Title 19 expressed in monetary amounts shall
accrue interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum commencing
30 days from the date such award, court order, decree, or
judgment is entered or an installment payment is due, as
applicable.

Ga. Code Ann. § 7 -4-12.1 (Supp. 2018). The CSM did not err by directing the county to
calculate the interest on husband’s spousal-maintenance arrears under Georgia law.
Husband raises several additional arguments, ranging from the amount of his arrears
to whether the CSM should waive interest altogether. Husband cites no controlling legal
authority with respect to most of these arguments, and we could deem them forfeited for
that reason. State v. Bursch, 905 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Minn. App. 2017). More importantly,
the arguments exceed the scope of this court’s remand. On remand, a district court must
follow the appellate court’s “mandate strictly according to its terms,” and has no authority
to “alter, amend, or modify” the mandate. Rooney v. Rooney, 669 N.W.2d 362, 371 (Minn.
App. 2003) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003). The CSM properly
limited his focus to the two issues on which we remanded, including whether Georgia law
controls the accrual of interest on spousal-maintenance arrears. We therefore decline to
address husband’s additional arguments and affirm the CSM’s order directing the county
to calculate the interest on husband’s spousal-maintenance arrears under Georgia law.
Affirmed.