Hubbard County Social Services, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0137

Hubbard County Social Services,
Respondent,

Amy Alyssa Post,
Respondent,

vs.

Samuel Morton Post III,
Appellant.

Filed July 22, 2019
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Hubbard County District Court
File No. 29-FA-17-26

Jonathan Frieden, Hubbard County Attorney, Kristine A. Peterson-Lahr, Assistant County
Attorney, Park Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent county)

Amy Alyssa Post, confidential address (pro se respondent)

Samuel Morton Post III, Nevis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Pre siding Judge; Cleary, Chief 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
Appellant-father challe nges the order modifying his child -support obligation,
arguing that the district court erred by ordering a guidelines amount rather than the
downward deviation recommended by the county. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Samuel Morton Post III and respondent Amy Alyssa Post were married
in 2001 and are the parents of one adult child and five minor children. After mother
petitioned for dissolution, respondent Hubbard County Social Services (the county) moved
to establish child support. A child-support magistrate (CSM) ordered father to pay $100
per month in basic support. In 2018, the district court dissolved the marriage. Father
appealed the dissolution judgment, arguing that the district court erred in its cu stody and
parenting-time determinations and in dividing the parties’ property. Post v. Post , No.
A18-0980, 2019 WL 1983368, at *1 (Minn. App. May 6, 2019).1
During the pendency of the appeal, the county moved to modify child support based
on a substantial change in circumstances , namely that father’s gross income had nearly
doubled since the initial order . The county proposed increasing father’s basic support to
$390 per month , noting that the recommendation was a downward deviation from the
guidelines to avoid causing further financial hardship. Father requested a hearing. During
the hearing, f ather testified that he worked full -time and earned $13 per hour, but was

1 This court affirmed in part, revers ed in part, and remand ed for further findings with
respect to parenting time. Post, 2019 WL 1983368, at *1.

3
homeless and owed $48,000 in legal fees. Father also testified t hat he had appealed the
dissolution judgment. The CSM ordered modification of child support, setting father’s
basic support at $747 per month . Father requested review of the CSM’s order , and the
district court affirmed. Father appeals.
D E C I S I O N
“A district court has broad discretion to provide for the support of the parties’
children,” and we will reverse that decision only if the district court abused its discretion.
Hubbard Cty. Health & Human Servs. v. Zacher, 742 N.W.2d 223, 226 (Minn. App. 2007).
We likewise review a district court’s decision affirming a CSM’s order for abuse of
discretion. Id. “A district court abuses its discretion when it establishes a child -support
obligation in a manner that is against logic and the facts in the record or when it misapplies
the law.” Id.
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering father to pay child
support consistent with the statutory guidelines.

A district court may modify an award of child support if there has been a substantial
change in circumstances that makes the existing award unfair and unreasonable. Minn.
Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (2018). Circumstances that may warrant modification include
a substantial increase in an obligor’s gross income. Id., subd. 2(a)(1) . Father does not
dispute that his gross monthly income nearly doubled since the initial child-support order,
and that this is a substantial change in circumstances. Accordingly, we turn to the district
court’s calculation of father’s support obligation.

4
“It is a rebuttable presumption that a child support order should not exceed the
obligor’s ability to pay.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 1(a) (2018). An obligor’s ability to
pay is determined as follows:
The court shall calculate the obligor’s income available
for support by subtracting a monthly self-support reserve equal
to 120 percent of the federal poverty guidelines for one person
from the obligor’s gross income. If the ob ligor’s income
available for support calculated under this paragraph is equal
to or greater than the obligor’s support obligation calculated
under section 518A.34, the court shall order child support
under section 518A.34.

Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 1(b) (2018). The CSM found father’s gross monthly income
is $2,253 . In 2018, the federal poverty guidelines for a single person household was
$12,140 annually ; 120% of this amount for one person is $1,214 per month . Annual
Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 83 Fed. Reg. 2642 (Jan. 18, 2018). Thus, father is
able to pay up to $1,039 per month in child support.
To determine the amount of a parent’s basic support obligation, the district court
must:
(1) determine the gross income of each parent under
section 518A.29;
(2) calculate the parental income for determining child
support (PICS) of each parent, by subtracting from the gross
income the credit, if any, for each parent’s nonjoint children
under section 518A.33;
(3) determine the percentage contribution of each parent
to the combined PICS by dividing the combined PICS into
each parent’s PICS;
(4) determine the combined basic support obligation by
application of the guidelines in section 518A.35;
(5) determine each parent’s share of the combined basic
support obligation by multiplying the percentage figure from

5
clause (3) by the combined basic support obligation in clause
(4); and
(6) apply the parenting expense adjustment formula
provided in section 518A.36 to deter mine the obligor’s basic
support obligation.

Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b) (2018). The district court found that mother’s gross monthly
income and parental income for determining child support (PICS ) is $2,928 and father’s
gross monthly income and PICS is $2,253 for a combined PICS of $5,181. The district
court found that mother’s percentage share of the PICS is 57% and father’s percentage
share of the PICS is 43%. Under Minn. Stat. § 518A.35, subd. 2 (2018), with a combined
PICS of $5,181, the parties’ comb ined basic -support obligation for their five minor
children is $1,975 per month. After applying father’s percentage and the 12% parenting-
time-expense adjustment, the district court ordered father to pay $747 per month in basic
support. This amount does not exceed father’s ability to pay and is within the statutory
guidelines. See Minn. Stat. § § 518A.34(b) (computation of obligor’s basic support
obligation), .35, subd. 2 (basic support guideline).
Father does not dispute the calculation of gross income, PICS, percentage share of
the PICS, or the parenting -time-expense adjustment. Rather, h e seems to argues that the
district court lacked authority to order an amount other than the downward deviation
recommended by the county . Because father cites no supporting legal authority, and
because no error on this point is obvious, this argument is not properly before us. See
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971)
(stating that an “assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by an
argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal

6
unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”); Braith v. Fischer , 632 N.W.2d
716, 725 (Minn. App . 2001) (applying Schoepke in a family law appeal), review denied
(Minn. Oct. 24, 2001). A district court may , but is not required to, deviate from the
presumptive child-support obligation to “encourage prompt and regular payments of child
support and to prevent either parent or the joint c hildren from living in poverty. ” In re
Dakota County, 866 N.W.2d 905, 911 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). On this record,
we discern no abuse of the district court’s broad discretion.
II. The district court had jurisdiction to modify child support.

Father argues that the district court erred by modifying his child-support obligation
while the dissolution-judgment appeal was pending. We are not persuaded. District courts
retain jurisdiction over “matters independent of, supplemental to, or collateral to the order
or judgment appealed from. ” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.01, subd. 2 . And “a properly
grounded motion to modify child support is independent of, supplemental to, or collateral
to previous child-support orders.” Perry v. Perry, 749 N.W.2d 399, 403 (Minn. App. 2008)
(quotation omitted). The district court was authorized to decide the motion to modify child
support while the dissolution-judgment appeal was pending.
Affirmed.