Ngozi Egwim, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1731

Ngozi Egwim,
Appellant,

vs.

Agugua Ogini Egwim,
Respondent,

Ramsey County Child Support,
Respondent.

Filed November 4, 2019
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-F3-99-000275

Ngozi Egwim, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Agugua Ogini Egwim, Far Rockaway, New York (pro se respondent)

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Sara Lauthen, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Ramsey County)

Considered and decided by Roden berg, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
Larkin, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Appellant mother challenges the child-support magistrate’s: (1) removal of interest
accrued on father’s child-support arrearages; (2) determination that a 2015 cost-of-living
adjustment was ineffective; and (3) consideration of her income and expenses. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Ngozi Egwim (mother) a nd respondent Agugua Ogini Egwi m (father)
dissolved their marriage in 2000. The parties have two children together, born in 1995 and
1998. Father has been ordered t o pay child support to mother s ince 1999. Respondent
Ramsey County informed father th at he needed to make his paymen ts through its child-
support office. Father could not pay mother directly because her address was confidential.
Mother received non-public assi stance through the county’s IV- D1 agency to
enforce the child-sup port order because father was behind on pa yments. The county
withheld income from father. In 2013, the county closed the IV-D case after losing contact
with mother and terminated income withholding for father. At t his time, the county
removed the arrearages owed by father from its IV-D records. I t also returned $6,737.66
to father because its records showed that he had overpaid. The county reopened the IV-D
case in January 2015 without adding the arrearages that it removed when it closed the case
in 2013. In March 2017, the county informed father that he owe d $42.25 in arrearages,

1 A IV-D case is “a case where a party has assigned to the state rights to child support
because of the receipt of public assistance as defined in section 256.741 or has applied for
child support services under title IV-D of the Social Security Act, United States Code, title
42, section 654(4).” Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 10 (2018).

3
which he paid. It then closed the case because its records sho wed that father was current
on his payments.
The county reopened the IV-D case in May 2018, after mother ag ain applied for IV-
D services to collect on arrearages. The county informed fathe r that he owed a total of
$663 in child support. It then c onducted an account review, ca lculating arrearages and
interest accrued, and in June 2018, the county informed father that he owed approximately
$39,000 in child support and interest.
The county had been adding cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) t o father’s
payments. It increased father’s monthly payment from $455 per month to $663 per month,
effective May 1, 2015. But, acco rding to the 2018 account revi ew, the 2015 COLA
increased father’s payment to $470 per month, not $663.
In July 2018, father moved to e liminate interest accrued from S eptember 2013 to
June 2018, eliminate or reduce arrearages, and eliminate child- support payments going
forward. After a hearing before a child-support magistrate (CS M), the CSM granted
father’s motion to remove interest accrued on the arrearages and determined that the 2015
COLA was ineffective. It ordered father to pay $455 per month toward the remaining
arrearages. Mother appeals.
D E C I S I O N
A party may appeal from a final order or judgment of a CSM. Minn. R. Gen. Prac.
378.01. On appeal from a CSM’s order that has not been reviewed by a district court, this
court uses the same standard of review that it would had a dist rict court issued the order.
Hesse v. Hesse, 778 N.W.2d 98, 102 (Minn. App. 2009).

4
I. The CSM acted within its disc retion by eliminating the inter est accrued on
father’s child-support arrearages.

Whether to modify child support is within the broad discretion of the CSM. Shearer
v. Shearer , 891 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App. 2017). A CSM abuses its discre tion if it
misapplies the law or makes its decision contrary to logic or the facts on record. Id. Mother
argues that the CSM erred by eliminating the interest accrued o n father’s child-support
arrearages. The county agrees.
Arrearages are amounts that accrue because of an obligor’s fai lure to comply with
a child-support order. Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 3 (2018). Generally, interest accrues
on a child-support payment whenever the unpaid amount due is gr eater than the current
s u p p o r t d u e . M i n n . S t a t . § 5 4 8 .091, subd. 1a (2018). Forgiven ess of child-support
arrearages is a retroactive modification of child support. Darcy v. Darcy, 455 N.W.2d 518,
524-25 (Minn. App. 1990). A CSM may modify child support upon a showing that there
has been a substantial change in circumstances rendering the existing award unreasonable
and unfair. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2 (2018). A modification of a support obligation,
including interest accrued, may be made retroactive only with respect to any period during
which the petitioning party has a motion for modification pendi ng, or if the parties agree
to an alternative effective date. Id., subd. 2(f). A district court abuses its discretion if it
forgives arrearages that accrued prior to an obligor’s service of a motion to modify child
support. Allan v. Allan, 509 N.W.2d 593, 597 (Minn. App. 1993).
The CSM eliminated interest accrued from September 2013 throug h June 2018
because the county terminated income withholding from father, closed the IV-D case, and

5
returned over $6,700 to father as overpayment. Father was told that his child-support
payments needed to go through the county, and he could not pay mother directly because
her address was confidential.
Father did not file his motion for modification until 2018, and the record does not
indicate that the parties agreed on an alternative effective date that would permit the CSM
to retroactively eliminate interest from 2013. However, althou gh the CSM may not have
acted pursuant to statutory authority, Minnesota caselaw provides that a CSM retains some
equitable discretion in family-law matters. See LaFreniere-Nietz v. Nietz , 547 N.W.2d
895, 898 (Minn. App. 1996) (stating that a district court may s upplement statutes with
equitable principles).
Here, father was informed that he needed to make his payments through the county.
But in September 2013, father received a letter from Ramsey Cou nty Child Support and
Collections informing him that it was terminating the obligatio n to withhold funds from
his income. The county also returned $6,737 to father as overpayment. Further, in March
2017, the county sent a letter to father stating that his outst anding child-support balance
was $42.25. Father paid the balance, and the county closed the case because its records
showed that father had paid all of his arrearages. In May 2018 , father received a letter
stating that he owed $663 in child support. One month later, in June 2018, father received
a letter stating that his outstanding balance was nearly $39,000.
During the time that he owed child support, father had no way t o contact mother
because her address was confidential. This court has affirmed a district court’s forgiveness
of arrearages when the obligor stopped making payments because the obligee did not

6
provide her with an address to which to send the payments. Meier v. Connelly, 378 N.W.2d
812, 818 (Minn. App. 1985).
Mother appears to challenge the CSM’s finding that her address was confidential.
She contends that she had a mailing address to which father could have sent child support.
We will affirm a district court’s findings of fact if they are reasonably supported by the
record. Vangsness v. Vangsness , 607 N.W.2d 468, 472, 474 (Minn. App. 2000). The
record supports the CSM’s finding that mother’s address was con fidential. In fact, the
county closed the IV-D case with her because it did not have he r address or any contact
information for her on file. There is nothing in the record in dicating that father had
knowledge of mother’s mailing address.
We express disappointment in the mixed messages sent to father regarding his child-
support obligations by the county. The county refunded father over $6,700 and repeatedly
misinformed him of his obligatio ns, including informing him tha t he was up to date on
payments. Father had to make payments through the county, but the county returned his
money. He had no way to pay mother directly. While closure of the IV-D case did not
relieve father of his child-support obligations, under these ci rcumstances, we affirm the
CSM’s decision to remove interest accrued on father’s arrearages.
II. The CSM did not abuse its discretion by determining that th e 2015 COLA was
ineffective.

An order establishing child support must provide for a biennia l adjustment in the
amount to be paid based on a change in the cost of living. Minn. Stat. § 518A.75, subd. 1(a)
(2018). To be effective, the public authority, or obligee, must send notice of the intended

7
COLA to the obligor’s last known address at least 20 days befor e the effective date. Id.,
subd. 2 (2018). To contest a COLA, the obligor must, before th e effective date, (1) file a
motion contesting the COLA and (2) serve the motion by first-cl ass mail on the public
authority and the obligee. Id., subd. 2a(a)(1)-(2) (2018). A CSM’s discretion is limited to
whether the COLA should take effect. Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App.
1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992). Mother argues that the CSM erroneously
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a C O L A d i d n o t e x i s t b e c a u s e n o n e o f t h e s t a t u tory requirements for
waiving a COLA are present. The county agrees.
The CSM found that the record contains no documentation that n otices were ever
sent to either party regarding the 2015 COLA. The CSM also found that the COLA notice
was incorrect because it stated t hat the support o bligation would increase from $455 per
month to $663 per month. As a result, the CSM determined that the COLA was ineffective
and that father would continue to pay his arrearages at the rat e of $455 per month instead
of $470.
Father did not contest the COLA. The record contains COLA not ices dated
March 21, 2015, addressed to both parties, informing them that the support amount would
increase to $663 per month. But a ccording to the county’s acco unt review, the COLA-
adjusted amount was $470 per month, rather than $663. The reco rd suggests that neither
party recalled receiving the COLA notice. The CSM asked the county to provide affidavits
of service of the COLA notices on the parties, but the county d id not have record of the
affidavits of service. Because the record does not indicate th at the notices of the correct
COLA were sent to the parties, we affirm the CSM’s decision.

8
III. The CSM properly considered mother’s income and expenses.

Mother appears to argue that the CSM should not have considered her income, and
that it is not unreasonable for her expenses to exceed her inco me. She also contends that
she has debt, significant expenses, and has been unable to work due to illness. The county
contends that the CSM is required to consider both parents’ income when determining child
support.
Mother cites no legal authority as to why the CSM should not ha ve considered her
income in deciding whether to modify child support. We decline to address allegations
unsupported by legal analysis or citation. Ganguli v. Univ. of Minn., 512 N.W.2d 918, 919
n.1 (Minn. App. 1994). And mother’s income is relevant to the CSM’s determination of
whether to modify child support. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(1) (2018) (stating that in
determining child support obliga tions of a parent, the court sh all determine the gross
income of each parent); see also Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd. 1 (2018) (stating that in
determining whether to modify c hild support, the district court must consider earnings,
income, and circumstances of each parent).
The CSM considered and made findings regarding both parents’ in come and
expenses. A CSM’s determination of income must be based in fac t and will stand unless
clearly erroneous. Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015), review
denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015). Mother appears to challenge the CSM’s finding that father
is unemployed. But father testified that he does not have a jo b. She also challenges the
CSM’s findings regarding her income, but financial documentatio n in the record is
consistent with the district court’s finding that mother earned $13,975.80 in the first quarter

9
of 2018. We affirm the CSM’s findings regarding the parties’ income and its consideration
of mother’s financial circumstances.
Affirmed.