In re the Marriage of: Heidi Marie Owens, petitioner, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0026

In re the Marriage of:
Heidi Marie Owens, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

James Allen Owens,
Appellant,

State of Minnesota, County of St. Louis, intervener,
Respondent.

Filed October 15, 2018
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-FA-13-56

Brent W. Malvick, Hanft Fride, P.A., Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent Heidi Owens)

James Owens, Johnstown, Pennsylvania (pro se appellant)

Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Amy E. Lukasavitz, Assistant County Attorney,
Duluth, 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
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to modify child support , arguing that
his child -support obligation is overstated and that the child -support magistrate (CSM)
failed to account for his disability and the resulting limitation on his income. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant James Allen Owens (father) and respondent Heidi Marie Owens (mother)
are the parents of three children, two of whom are minors. At the time of dissolution of
their marriage in 2014, the district court awarded mother sole legal and sole physical
custody of the three children, subject to father’s reasonable parenting time. Of the marital
investments, retirement funds , and proceeds from selling the marital homestead , father
received one-half. Based on findings that father was unemployed but received severance
pay from his previous employment, the district court ordered father to pay $1,500 per
month in spousal maintenance and $1,744 per month in basic child support.
Father appealed the judgment. The parties and their attorneys participated in
mediation provided by this court. They reached a me diated agreement in which they
stipulated that father would pay $2,000 per month in child sup port but that terminated his
spousal-maintenance obligation. Father dismissed his appeal . At the time, mother
continued to work full-time, and father remained unemployed.
In 2016, father moved for modification of child support. The CSM denied father’s
motion, finding no substantial change in circumstances that rendered the stipulated order
unfair or unreasonable. The CSM found that father’s assertion that his disability warranted

3
a modification to be immaterial, as father’s employment status had not changed . At the
time of the prior order, when father was unemployed, he stipulated that the child -support
order was fair and reasonable . To subsequently find the same order unreasonable and
unfair would “stand child support modification law on its head,” according to the CSM.
Father appealed, then voluntarily dismissed the appeal.
In 2017, father moved a second time for modification of child support , by sending
the motion to the opposing parties by U.S. Mail himself. Because both the county and
mother appeared at the hearing and did not object to improper service, the CSM found that
any service-related objection was waived. Father asked the CSM to decrease his child -
support obligation based on the emancipation of the oldest child and father’s disability.
Despite testifying that he was working full -time, earning $12.75 per hour , father argued
that he was disabled due to his mental-health diagnoses and a shoulder injury. He testified
that he had applied for Social Security benefits in 2015, was denied, and had been waiting
for a hearing since . The CSM explained to father that in order to find him disabled and
unable to work, father must provide objective medical verification of that fact. Father did
not provide such documentation.
Father testified that he had no remaining assets from the judgment . The CSM
requested further information and left the record open for father to submit verification of
his assets. Before the record closed, father submitted a handwritten response that listed
some assets (but failed to account for his retirement funds), reported that since 2013 he had
spent $397,353 on the children, and stated that his employment had been terminated. After

4
the record closed a nd one day before the order was filed, father submitted a dditional
materials to the CSM that were not considered.
On November 21, 2017, the CSM denied father’s second motion, finding that absent
verification of his disability, father was not considered to be disabled and was able to earn
$12.75 per hour on a full-time basis. The CSM concluded that absent verification of the
nature and extent of father’s assets, the CSM could not determine appropriate child support
following the emancipation of a child. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Father contends that his child -support obligation is overstated because the CSM
failed to take into con sideration his mental-health diagnoses and his should er injury. We
apply the same standard for reviewing a CSM’s order that we apply to a district court’s
order regarding child support. Ludwigson v. Ludwigson, 642 N.W.2d 441, 445-46 (Minn.
App. 2002). A CSM is afforded broad discretion in making child-support determinations.
Gully v. Gully , 599 N.W.2d 814, 820 (Minn. 19 99). 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.
A CSM may modify a child-support order “upon a showing of a substantial change
in circumstances that makes the order unreasonable and unfair.” Rose v. Rose, 765 N.W.2d
142, 145 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted). The moving party has the burden of proof
in support-modification proceedings. Johnson v. Johnson , 232 N.W.2d 204, 205 (Minn.
1975). A district co urt may reject a party’s disability claim if the party fails to present

5
documentation of a medical restriction on employment. Funari v. Funari , 388 N.W.2d
751, 753 (Minn. App. 1986).
Here, the record reflects, and the CSM acknowledged, that father has b een
diagnosed with multiple mental -health illnesses. While we are sympathetic to father’ s
health challenges, the CSM made it abundantly clear that, in order to modify his child -
support obligation on this basis , father needed to provide medical verification that his
disability affected his ability to work. Father failed to do so. The CSM explained to father
that his application for Social Security benefits alone was not sufficient to find that he was
disabled and unable to earn an income. The CSM grappled with the fact that, although
father stated that he was disabled, he also tes tified that he was working full -time, earning
$2,208 per month. The CSM did not abuse his discretion in requiring father to provide
medical verification of his inability to work based on a disability. See Sand v. Sand, 379
N.W.2d 119, 124 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding that an allegation of “poor health” alone is
insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof), review denied (Minn. Jan. 31, 1986). And
the CSM did not abuse his discretion in finding that father could work, as father testified
he was working at the time.
The CSM also found that because father did not submit verification of his assets as
ordered, the CSM was unable to calculate child support based on the emancipation of a
child. The emancipation of a child is one of the grounds for modification of child support.
Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (2016). Upon emancipation of one child while minor
children remain under the order, a party may move for modification, and “ [t]he child
support obligation shall be determined based on the income of the parties at the time the

6
modification is sought.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 1 (1) (2016). In modifying child
support that deviates from guidelines, the district court is required to take into account
factors such as the earnings, income, circumstances, and resources of each parent,
including real and personal property. Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd. 5(c) (2016). At the
time of the mediated agreement, father was unemployed and yet agreed to pay child support
in the amount of $2,000, presumably based on his assets following the dissolution. At the
modification hearing, father testified that he no longer owned any of the assets that he had
at the time of the mediated agreement. The CSM requested that father submit a sworn
statement of the assets that he had at the time of the agreement, the status verifying his
assets at the time of the modification hearing, and an explanation of what, if anything,
happened to those assets. Father’s handwritten submission generally asserted that he spent
$397,353 between 2013 and 2017 on the children, yet provided no verification of the status
of his retirement or bank accounts or any payments he made during those years. Based on
this record, the CSM properly exercised his discretion by declining to modify father’s child
support.
Father contends that service of his motion was proper, as he sent the notice of motion
and motion to mother and the county through the U.S. Postal Service. We need not address
this argument, as the CSM found that any service objections were waived by the parties,
as they appeared at the motion hearing and made no objections. To be clear, father failed
to properly serve the parties because he personally sent the motion in the mail. A party to
a proceeding cannot serve a motion by depositing it in the mail himself. See Minn. R. Gen.
Prac. 355.02, subd. 2. Proper service by U.S. Mail, under the expedited child-support rules,

7
requires that only a “sheriff or . . . any other person who is at least 18 years of age who is
not a party to the proceeding” send the notice of motion and motion in the mail. Id.
Father argues that he is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because this argument is raised for the first time on appeal, was not adequately briefed,
and is unsupported by authority, we decline to address it. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d
580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that, generally, appellate courts address only those
questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).
Father also raises other arguments regarding the events leading up to the parties’
dissolution and the terms of the mediated agreement. Because these arguments have no
bearing in the motion to modify child support, we decline to address them.
Affirmed.