In re the Marriage of: Gregory Joseph Parnell, petitioner, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1339

In re the Marriage of:
Gregory Joseph Parnell, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Christine Melanie Parnell,
Appellant.

Filed March 9, 2020
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-FA-15-4676

Beau D. McGraw, McGraw Law Firm, P.A., Lake Elmo, Minnesota (for respondent)

Christine Parnell, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Florey, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
On appeal from the district court’s denial of her request for spousal maintenance,
appellant-wife argues that: (1) she did not receive notice of a hearing from her attorney and
therefore was unable to offer evidence; (2) the district court erred in calculating respondent-

2
husband’s income and ability to pay spousal maintenance; a nd (3) she did not receive a
vehicle awarded to her in the dissolution judgment. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-wife Christine Melanie Parne ll married respondent-husband Gregory
Joseph Parnell in 1996 . The parties have one child, bor n in 2009. In 2015, husband
petitioned for dissolution of the marriage.
At the time of trial, wife was unempl oyed and husband worked for a railroad
company. He did not testify on his wa ge amounts but submitte d tax documents and
earnings statements. The district court found that husband earned a gross monthly income
of $5,955, had a net monthly income of $5,340, and had monthly expenses of $5,357. The
court found that wife had reasonable monthly expenses of $2,060 and the potential to earn
$1,254 per month. The c ourt awarded wife $1,000 in permanent monthly spousal
maintenance, granted husband sole custody of the child, and ordered wife to pay $589 in
monthly child support.
Husband appealed the maintenance awar d, and in an unpublished opinion we
reversed and remanded, concluding that the district court failed to make sufficient findings
to permit review. Parnell v. Parnell, No. A18-0135, 2019 WL 178472, at *3 (Minn. App.
Jan. 14, 2019). We found three deficiencies: (1) the district court failed to make a finding
as to whether husband’s monthly expenses were reasonable; (2) the court failed to explain
why spousal maintenance should be permanent; and (3) “the district court made no findings
as to why an award that l eaves husband with a $1,017 m onthly deficit is just.” Id. at *2.

3
We remanded for the district court “to make appropriate findings or to reconsider its award
of maintenance,” and we permitted the district court to reopen the record. Id. at *3.
On February 15, 2019, the district court held a review hearing to address the remand.
Wife failed to appear. Six days later, the district court filed an order reopening the record
and permitting the parties to submit additional affidavits and exhibits by March 15, 2019,
and additional memoranda by March 29. Any exhibits were to be “properly supported by
sworn affidavit(s).” The district court indicated that it would not address any issues beyond
those identified by this court. Husband did not submit additional evidence, and wife
submitted only a notarized letter. She raised numerous argum ents in her letter, including
that she did not receive a truck awarded to her in the divorce, and that husband’s annual
income was $104,567 based upon a 2016 quarterly pay stub.
In June 2019, the district court filed an amended judgment and decree. The court
concluded that the issues raised in wife’s letter were beyond the scope of the remand. The
court found that husband has reasonable monthly expenses of $5,357, monthly net income
of $5,340, and monthly gross income of $5,955. The court found that wife has reasonable
monthly expenses of $2,060 and an imputed gross monthly income of $1,254. The court
removed the award of spousal maintenance and re served the issue of ch ild support. This
appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Wife raises three discernable arguments: (1) she did not receive notice of a hearing
from her attorney, causing her to miss her opportunity to offer additional evidence; (2) the

4
district court erred in calculating husband’s income and ability to pay spousal maintenance;
and (3) she did not receive a vehicle awarded to her in the decree.
I.
Wife argues that she did not receive notic e from her former attorney regarding the
review hearing, which deprived her of the ability to offer additional evidence concerning
her medical issues. For two reasons, this argument is unavailing.
First, wife failed to raise the argument to the district court, and the district court did
not substantively address the issue. The district court noted in its February 2019 order that
notice of the hearing was mailed to wife’s former attorney. This suggests that wife did not
receive notice of the hearing, but it is not conclusive. Determining whether wife received
notice requires further factfinding, a nd we are not a factfinding court. Berc v. Berc, 407
N.W.2d 131, 135 (Minn. App. 1987). Th e issue is not properly before us. See Thiele v.
Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (declining to address issues not raised to and
addressed by district court).
Second, assuming arguendo that wife rece ived deficient noti ce of the review
hearing, the record indicates that the deficiency was cured and did not affect wife’s ability
to offer additional evidence. See Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc. , 237 N.W.2d
76, 78 (1975) (stating that, absent prejudice, error is not ground for reversal). The record
indicates that on February 28, 2019, the district court mailed a notice to wife of the review-
hearing order, which contained the deadlines for submission of additional evidence.
Indeed, on March 18, 2019, wife filed her letter with the district court, a clear indication
that she was aware of the deadlines.

5
II.
Wife next argues that the district court erred in calculating husband’s income. We
examine a district court’s award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Curtis
v. Curtis, 887 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn. 2016). A district court abuses its discretion if its
findings of fact are unsu pported by the record. Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202
(Minn. 1997). “A district court’s determinat ion of income for main tenance purposes is a
finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Melius v. Melius, 765 N.W.2d
411, 414 (Minn. App. 2009) ( quotation omitted). We review th e record in the light most
favorable to the district court’s findings. Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472
(Minn. App. 2000).
Here, the district court’s findings con cerning husband’s in come are “within a
reasonable range of figures” and suffi ciently supported by the record. Schreifels v.
Schreifels, 450 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Minn. App. 1990) (quotation omitted). Husband’s 2016
W-2 shows total taxable wages of $71,455.07 , which equates to average monthly taxable
wages of $5,954.59, in line wi th the $5,955 in gross-monthly wages found by the district
court. Husband’s August 31, 2017, earnings statement shows year-to-date federal taxable
wages of $59,246.03, suggesting monthly taxable wages of $7,405.75, but his year-to-date
net pay is listed as $37,086.16, which suggest s monthly net pay of $4,635.77, below the
$5,340 found by the district court. Husband testified at trial that he earned monthly rental
income of $650. This $650, combined with the $4,635.77 in monthly net pay, totals
$5,285.77, in line with the $5,340 found by the district court.

6
III.
Lastly, wife argues that she did not recei ve the “Silverado Tr uck” that she was
awarded. Wife was awarded the “2000 Chev rolet Silverado” in the divorce decree.
Although wife raised th e issue of the truck in her March 2019 letter to the district court,
the district court concluded that the truck wa s “outside the scope” of those issues to be
addressed on remand. The district court did not err in this regard. We remanded “to permit
the district court to consider and to make fi ndings of fact regarding the relevant statutory
maintenance factors,” not to consider enforc ement of the decree’s property division.
Parnell, 2019 WL 178472, at *3. This should not be taken as an indication that wife
cannot, in the future, seek po ssession of the truck, her duly awarded property, through an
appropriate action.
Affirmed.