In re the Marriage of: Edith Ponciano, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-2013

In re the Marriage of:
Edith Ponciano, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Felix Murillo,
Appellant.

Filed August 24, 2020
Reversed and remanded
Segal, Chief Judge

Rice County District Court
File No. 66-FA-18-1110

W. Bradley Frago, Frago & Lasswell, P.A., Northfield, Minnesota; and

Kenneth R. White, The Law Office of Ke nneth R. White, Mankato, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Michael D. Gavigan, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Pr esiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.


 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SEGAL, Chief Judge
Appellant-husband challenges the award of spousal maintenance to respondent-
wife, arguing that the record does not support the award. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Appellant-husband Felix Murillo and respondent-wife Edith Ponciano were married
in 1999. The parties have one adult child an d one minor child. The parties separated in
2017, and wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 2018. As part of the petition
for dissolution, wife sought an award of spousal maintenance.
The district court issued a judgment and decree dissolving the marriage in October
2019. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the district court determined that wife was
not able to meet her reasonable expenses and was entitled to spousal maintenance.
Specifically, the district court determined that wife’s reasonable expenses were $3,053 and
that she had a gross monthly income of $2,424 for child-support purpo ses. The district
court determined that husband had a monthly budget of $2,592 and a gross monthly income
of $4,070 for child-support purposes. The district court ultimately awarded wife temporary
spousal maintenance that would gradually be reduced. Under the te rms of the judgment,
wife would receive $700 per month until May 2021, $500 per month until May 2024, and
$250 per month until May 2027, at which time the spousal maintenance would terminate.
The district court also ordered husband to pay wife $502 per month for basic child support
and $80 per month for medical support for the minor child. Husb and now appeals the
award of spousal maintenance.

3
D E C I S I O N
We review a district court’s spousal- maintenance decision for an abuse of
discretion. Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997). A district court abuses
its discretion if it reaches a conclusion “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Curtis
v. Curtis , 887 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn. 2016) (q uotation omitted). We review legal
questions de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Kampf v. Kampf, 732 N.W.2d 630,
633 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007). Findings of fact are clearly
erroneous when they are “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not
reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Id. (quotation omitted).
A district court may order spousal maintenance if it finds that the spouse requesting
maintenance either:
(a) lacks sufficient property . . . to provide for
reasonable needs of the spouse considering the standard of
living established during the marriage . . . or
(b) is unable to provide adequate self-support, after
considering the standard of living established during the
marriage and all relevant circum stances, through appropriate
employment . . . .
Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1 (2018); see also Lyon v. Lyon , 439 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn.
1989) (stating that an award of spousal maintenance requires a showing of need). The
district court may award temporary or perman ent spousal maintenance as it “deems just”
and after considering “all relevant factors. ” Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (2018).
Although the statute lists several factors, the issue is “basically the financial needs of [the
spousal-maintenance obl igee] and her ability to meet t hose needs balanced against the

4
financial condition of [the s pousal-maintenance obligor.]” Erlandson v. Erlandson , 318
N.W.2d 36, 39-40 (Minn. 1982).
Husband makes several arguments challe nging the district court’s award of
temporary spousal maintenance to wife. First, husband argues that the district court abused
its discretion because it failed to make adequa te findings about the parties’ prior standard
of living and the statute requires consideration of “the standard of living established during
the marriage” in determining spou sal maintenance. Minn. Stat . § 518.552, subd. 1. The
district court found that the parties “lived frugally throughout their marriage,” as evidenced
by the fact that they paid off their manufactured home and kept a savings account, and that
both parties worked outside the home and cont ributed to the family’s finances during the
marriage. Husband comp lains that this finding is not ad equate. Neither party, however,
submitted evidence detailing pre-separation expenses and their budget. The district court
is not obligated to make findings that are more specific than the ev idence presented and,
thus, we find no error in the court’s findings on this issue. See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk,
668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that “[o]n appeal a party cannot complain
about a district court’s failure to rule in [his] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so
is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow
the district court to fully address the question”), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
Moreover, it appears that the real crux of husband’s argument is that the district
court erred by looking to husband’s higher le vel of earnings post-separation than his
earnings level during the marriag e. But the district court di d not assess wife’s need for
spousal maintenance based on husband’s post-separation earnings. The district court

5
looked to his earnings only to assess his abil ity to pay maintenance, which is permissible
under the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(g). Thus, we find no error in the
district court’s findings on the standard of li ving established during the marriage or in its
reliance on husband’s current rate of income in determining his ability to pay spousal
maintenance.
Husband next argues that the record do es not support the spousal-maintenance
award because the district court looked only to wife’s income calculated for child support
purposes, not total net income . In calculating income fo r child support purposes, the
district court correctly included income only from the parties’ regular 40-hour per week
jobs. But “[w]hen awarding spousal maintenance, a district court must consider all income
of the requesting spouse.” Madden v. Madden, 923 N.W.2d 688, 701 (Minn. App. 2019)
(quotation omitted). Wife also had a 10-hour per week part-time job and the district court
erred in not including this income in calculating wife’s spousal maintenance award.1 Id.
Finally, husband argues that the spousal-maintenance award is unreasonable in light
of his separate child-support obligation. Specifically, husband points to the district court’s
finding that $498, of wife’s $3,053 monthly budget, related to “exp enses exclusively for
the minor child,” including expenses for the child’s food, clothing, spending money, school
lunches, and sports. The dist rict court ordered husband to pay $502 per month in basic

1 It should be noted that the district court similarly failed to calculate husband’s total net
income, because he also has a part-time job in addition to his full-time position. But since
husband’s ability to pay maintenance is not at issue, the district court’s failure to consider
the income from his second jo b does not substantively imp act the spousal-maintenance
analysis.

6
child support for the minor child . Notably, the amount of basic child support is almost
identical to the amount of expenses in wife’s budget that relate exclusively to the minor
child. Because of the lack of findings and analysis on the spousal-maintenance issue, it is
unclear from the record whether expenses for the minor child were being double counted.
The reasonableness of wife’s expenses related to the minor child must be evaluated in light
of the child-support order.
We therefore reverse and remand to the dist rict court to make additional findings
regarding the wife’s net income for spousal maintenance purposes and the reasonableness
of wife’s monthly expenses regarding the minor child to avoid any double payments.
Reversed and remanded.