Roger D. Anderson, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A20-0175

Roger D. Anderson,
Respondent,

vs.

Cheryl Kaliszewski,
Appellant.

Filed August 24, 2020
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CV-19-1335

Roger D. Anderson, St. Paul, Minnesota (attorney pro se)

Cheryl Kaliszewski, Oakdale, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
Appellant Cheryl Kaliszewski appeals the district court’s denial of her claimed
exemption from garnishment of funds held in her bank account, arguing that the district
court clearly erred in finding that the funds are not exempt from garnishment . Because

2
appellant failed to satisfy her burden of proving that the funds are exempt, the court’s
findings are not clearly erroneous and we affirm.
FACTS
The district court, in a decision which preceded the order we now review, granted
respondent Roger D. Anderson summary judgment for $12,689.40 against Kaliszewski for
breach of a legal retainer agreement. Kaliszewski did not appeal the judgment.
Anderson subsequently served a nonearnings garnishment summons on Wells Fargo
with notice to Kaliszewski. Kaliszewski responded by asserting that her funds were
exempt from garnishment because she received government benefits and earned limited
wages.1
Before the hearing on the garnishment matter, Anderson submitted the garnishment
summons to the district court along with the following documents: (1) a letter from the
Social Security Administration showing Kaliszewski had not received Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) since 2008 and had not received Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) since August 2019, and (2) bank records from Kaliszewski’s Wells Fargo accoun t
for August and September 2019.

1 Kaliszewski also argues for an exemption based on benefits of “an accident, disability or
retirement pension or annuity.” Kaliszewski does not explain, and we cannot discern from
the record, what funds she believes are exempted on this basis. Additionally, although
Kaliszewski demonstrated that she receives Social Security retirement income, she has not
argued or shown how it is exempt. These issues were not ruled on by the district court.
See Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts will
generally not consider matters not considered the district court). Because it is her burden
to establish error on appeal, we affirm the district court. See Waters v. Fiebelkorn ,
13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944).

3
On November 20, 2019, Kaliszewski filed a r esponse with the district court
asserting that she receives SSDI, Social Security, Medicare Parts A, B, and D, and income
from a part-time job in which she earns less than $290 per week. She attached documents
showing that she received Social Security retirement and was enrolled in Medicare Part A
and B. Kaliszewski also submitted bank statements from her Wells Fa rgo account from
August to November 2019 and an earnings statement reflecting hourly employment for two
weeks in September 2019, and $10,652.64 in year-to-date earnings.
Following a hearing during which the district court heard arguments f rom both
parties, the district court denied Kaliszewski’s exemption claim . The district court found
that Kaliszewski did not receive SSI or SSDI, and that the bank records showed no deposit
of Medicare Part B or D funds into the relevant bank account. Based on these findings, the
district court determined that Kaliszewski did not have a valid exemption claim and ordered
that the garnishee retain possession and control of the funds. Kaliszewski appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Whether funds are exempt from garnishment is a questio n of fact. Investors Savs.
Bank v. Miller, 440 N.W.2d 168, 171 (Minn. App. 1989). “Findings of fact, whether based
on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due
regard shall be given to the opportunity of the [ district] court to judge the credibility of
witnesses.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. “On appeal, a [district] court’s findings of fact are
given great deference . . . .” Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn.
1999). Kaliszewski bears the burden of showing how the district court clearly erred. See

4
Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949) (“[T]he burden of showing error rests upon
the one who relies upon it.”)
A creditor may begin an ancillary proceeding to a civil action for recovery of money
through a garnishment summons “at any time after entry of a money judgment in the civil
action.” Minn. Stat. § 571.71(3) (2018). But some funds are exempt from garnishment.
Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 1 (2018). We analyze the relevant exemptions below.
I. The district court did not clearly err by finding that Kaliszewski failed to prove
an exemption from garnishment.
We first examine the record to determine whether the district court made clearly
erroneous findings to deny the exemption claim. As discussed below, the record supports
the district court’s findings that Kaliszewski failed to demonstrate that she received exempt
funds that were deposited into the bank account within 60 days of Anderson’s garnishment
summons.
A. Public-Assistance Exemption
Minnesota statutes delineate certain exemptions for needs -based public assistance.
Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 14 (2018) (“All government assistance based on need, and the
earnings or salary of a person who is a recipient of government assistance based on need ,
shall be exempt from all claims of creditors including any contractual setoff or security
interest asserted by a financial institut ion.”). The statute specifically identifie s SSI,
Medicare Part B premiums, and Medicare Part D extra help payments as forms of public
assistance exempted from garnishment. Id. For property to qualify for this exemption,
“[t]he burden of establishing that funds are exempt rests upon the debtor.” Id. Forms of

5
public assistance other than those specifically identified in the statute may qualify for
exemption. Id. (“For the purposes of this chapter, government assistance based on need
includes but is not limited to . . . .”). The exemption applies for “60 days after deposit in
any financial institution.” Id.
1. SSI and SSDI Payments
Beginning with Anderson’s purported receipt of SSI and SSDI payments, the district
court credited the documentary evidence submitted by Anderson at the time of the hearing.
The district court received documentation from the Social Security Administration dated
October 2, 2019, stating,
Social Securit y’s needs -based program is Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). [Kaliszewski] has not received
payments for SSI, since September 2008. [Kaliszewski]
received Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) from
December 2007 up until August 2019. [Kaliszewsk i] has
Medicare A and Medicare B, still active. The State of
Minnesota was paying for [Kaliszewski’s] Medicare B
premiums from August 2016 to June 2017.
Kaliszewski’s documentary evidence , submitted November 20, 2019, shows SSDI
payments made to her ending on August 2, 2019, consistent with the letter from the Social
Security Administration. Based on this evidence, the district court found that Kaliszewski
did not receive SSI or SSDI . This finding is supported by the record and is therefore not
clearly erroneous.
2. Medicare Payments
Kaliszewski’s argument as to how the court erred in its findings regarding Medicare
payments is unclear. The district court found that she did not deposit “any cash benefits

6
from Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D extra help” in her Wells Fargo account.
Kaliszewski filed documents with the district court purporting to show that she receives
Medicare Parts A, B, and D. However, the documents she filed only show enrollment in
Medicare Parts A an d B. This fits the correspondence submitted by Anderson from the
Social Security Administration which makes no reference to Medicare Part D. Therefore,
Kaliszewski’s claim that she receives payments from Medicare Part D is unsupported and
the district court did not make a clearly errone ous finding. See Minn. Stat. § 550.37,
subd. 14 (requiring the debtor to meet a burden to show funds qualify as exempt as public
assistance).
Next, Kaliszewski presents no legal argument on appeal that Medicare Part A
qualifies as public assistance exempt from garnishment. Although Minn. Stat. § 550.37,
subd. 14, provides a nonexhaustive list of public assistance benefits which qualify as
exempt, the list does not identify Medicare Part A. Because Kaliszewski does not make an
argument that it does qualify, we decline to address the issue here . State, Dep’t of Labor
& I ndus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (stating
appellate courts decline to reach inadequately briefed issues). More critically, the record
does not reflect that she receives Medicare Part A benefits. Kaliszewski provided
documentation that showed she is enrolled in Medicare Part A , but not that she receives
any funds from that program.
Finally, the bank records submitted by Kaliszewski do not show that she placed any
of the Medicare Part B funds that she received into the We lls Fargo account at issue. See

7
Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 14. The district court’s finding as to a lack of exempt Medicare
benefits was not clearly erroneous.
3. Exempt Earnings Due to Recipient of Governmental Assistance
Finally, Kaliszewski claims an exemption based upon her earnings as a recipient of
public assistance. Kaliszewski provided an earning statement to the district court showing
that, until October 4, 2019, she received $10,652.64 from hourly employment earnings.
First, it must be noted that the garnishment summons notes that it is not seeking
employment earnings. This resolves the matter consistent with the district court’s decision.
Even if the summons sought earnings, for the reasons noted below, the district court’s
finding was not clearly erroneous.
An exemption may apply “60 days after deposit into any financial institution,
whether in a single or joint account.” Id. Kaliszewski must trace those funds to establish
an exemption for this garnishment. Id. Although Kaliszewski provided employment
documentation, she did not provide documentation showing her employment wages were
deposited into this particular bank account beyond September 6, 2019 —62 days before
Anderson’s November 7, 2019 nonearnings garnishment summons. It is Kaliszewski’s
burden to trace these funds. See id. Because Kaliszewski bears the burden to trace funds,
the district court did not erroneously determine that this exemption was inapplicable.
Affirmed.