In re the Marriage of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0177

In re the Marriage of:

Daniel Raymond Jacobs,
Respondent,

vs.

Zdenka Irena Fenikova,
Appellant.

Filed April 5, 2021
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-12-7805

Daniel Raymond Jacobs, Apple Valley, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Zdenka Irena Fenikova, Orono, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Pres iding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant Zdenka Irena Fenikova challenges the order of a child-support magistrate
(CSM) regarding her motion to modify resp ondent Daniel Raymond Jacobs’s childcare-

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of A ppeals, serving by appoi ntment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
support obligation. Although the CSM did increase child care support as Fenikova
requested, Fenikova argues that the increase wa s insufficient for two reasons. First, she
asserts that the CSM imprope rly imputed income to her under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32,
subd. 1 (2020). Second, she ar gues that the CSM depended on unreliable evidence when
calculating Jacobs’s gross monthly income. Fenikova makes two additional arguments, one
regarding a June 2015 child-support modification order and the other regarding increased
childcare costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We affirm.
FACTS
The following facts are drawn from the CS M’s order modifying childcare support
and the modified judgment and decree (J&D) dissolving the parties’ marriage.
Fenikova and Jacobs married in 2010, and their marriage was dissolved in 2014. In
the J&D, the district court granted Fenikova sole legal and physical custody of the parties’
minor twin children. It also ordered Jacobs to pay Fenikova spousal maintenance, general
child support, and childcare support. To dete rmine these obligations , the district court
determined the parties’ incomes. At the time of dissolution, Jacobs was self-employed as
president and CEO of Vedalo HD Performance Eyewear. The district court found that his
gross monthly income was $12,000. Fenik ova was not employed. The district court
imputed to her a gross monthly income of $1,885—150% of the federal minimum wage.
In 2015, the district court modified Jaco bs’s child-support obligation after he lost
his job at Vedalo. The district court determined that Jacobs had no discernable income and
imputed to him a gross monthly income of $5,000 based on his education, past
employment, and earning history. Fenikova was still unempl oyed, and the district court

3
again imputed to her a gross monthly income of $1,885. Finding that there was a substantial
change in Jacobs’s income, the district court reduced Jacobs’s basic child-support
obligation to $727 per month and, because the children were in kindergarten, relieved
Jacobs of his previous obligation to pay for two days of preschool childcare per week. The
district court ordered that any childcare cost s were to be split according to the parties’
monthly parental income for determining child support (PICS).
In 2018, the CSM modified Jacobs’s child care-support obligation twice. First, the
CSM ordered Jacobs to pay $42 per month in childcare support. The CSM later increased
Jacobs’s childcare-support obligation to $ 320 per month. By the time of those
modifications, Jacobs was employed in his current position as president and primary
shareholder of Bald Man Br ewing, an S corporation. Jacobs owns 28.2% of the
corporation’s shares. The CSM found Jacobs’s gross monthly income from his salary to be
$12,000. The CSM then added another $2,472 in gross monthly income based on Jacobs’s
share of Bald Man Brewing’s profits; the CS M determined Jacobs’s share of Bald Man
Brewing’s profits from the business’s profit-a nd-loss statement and, even though Jacobs
did not actually receive hi s share of the profits, 1 included them in his monthly income,
citing Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703, 713 (Minn. 2013). Jacobs’s total gross monthly
income was thus determined to be $14,472. By this time, Fenikova was working at ICA
Foodshelf for an average of 38.35 hours per week, earning $15 per hour. The CSM found

1 Jacobs explained that Bald Man Brewing reinvested its profits into the corporation.

4
that Fenikova’s actual gross monthly income was $2,493 but imputed a gross monthly
income of $2,860 because Fenikova was not working full-time.
With this background, we turn to the order under review. In 2019, Fenikova moved
to modify child support, in pa rticular, childcare support, c iting increased childcare costs.
The CSM held an evidentiary hearing on the motion in October 2019 and modified Jacobs’s
childcare-support obligation, ordering him to pay $638 per month for childcare.
In its order, the CSM determined Jacobs’s gross annual income to be $137,260. In
reaching this amount, the CSM evaluated Jac obs’s 2018 and 2019 gr oss annual incomes.
First, the CSM took Jacobs’s annual gross salary of $144,001 and deducted $6,058—his
share of Bald Man Brewing’s projected losses in 2019—for a projected 2019 gross annual
income of $137,943. Second, the CSM looked at the gross annual income listed on Jacobs’s
2018 tax return, which listed his gross annual income as $137,260. The CSM determined
that the income listed on Jacobs’s 2018 tax return was a “more complete reflection” of his
income because any additional losses at Bald Man Brewing in 2019 were speculative. Thus,
the CSM relied on Jacobs’s 2018 income tax return and determined that Jacobs had a gross
monthly income of $11,438.
At the time of the evidentia ry hearing, Fenikova wa s working at FirstService
Residential, earning $15 per hour and working an average of 32 hours per week for a gross
monthly income of $2,080. She had recently been laid off from her job at Urban Arts
Academy, where she earned $21.15 per hour a nd worked 40 hours per week. The CSM
imputed an additional $520 in gross monthly income to Fenikova based on the statutory
presumption that she could work 40 hours per week. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1.

5
Thus, the CSM determined Fenikova’s gross monthly income to be $2,600 and found that
this sum was in line with Fenikova’s overall earning history.
Fenikova sought review of the CSM’s order by the district court. The district court
affirmed the CSM, with the exception of one nonsubstantive change.2
Fenikova appeals. 3
DECISION
Fenikova seeks review of the district c ourt’s affirmance of the CSM’s 2019 order
modifying child support. When a district c ourt affirms a CSM’s ruling, the CSM’s ruling
becomes the ruling of the district court, and we review the CSM’s decision as if it were
made by the district court. Welsh v. Welsh , 775 N.W.2d 364, 366 (Minn. App. 2009).
Whether to modify child support is within the broad discretion of the district court, and we
review orders modifying child support for abuse of that discretion. Shearer v. Shearer, 891
N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App. 2017); see Haefele, 837 N.W.2d at 708. A district court abuses
its discretion if its decision is based on a misa pplication of the law, contradicts the facts,
or is contrary to logic. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d at 77.

2 The district court corrected one misidentification of Fenikova as the petitioner instead of
the respondent in the dissolution proceeding.

3 Jacobs did not file a brief in this appeal, and we ordered that th e appeal proceed under
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03.

6
I. The district court did not err by imputing income to Fenikova.
Fenikova first argues that the CSM should not have imputed any income to her
because of her work history during her transition into the workforce. Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.32, subd. 1, states:
If a parent is voluntarily une mployed, underemployed, or
employed on a less than full-time basis, or there is no direct
evidence of any inco me, child support must be calculated
based on a determination of potential income. For purposes of
this determination, it is rebutta bly presumed that a parent can
be gainfully employed on a full-time basis.

We review a district court’s factual finding that a parent is voluntarily underemployed for
clear error. Welsh, 775 N.W.2d at 370.
The CSM found that Fenikova was underemp loyed based on the number of hours
she worked per week. This finding is supported by the record. The statute defines full-time
employment as 40 hours of work per week. Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1. At the
evidentiary hearing, Fenikova testified that she was working 32 hours per week. Fenikova
stated that she was unsure if working 40 hours per week was possible at her current job.
Fenikova also submitted several paystubs from her employe r, FirstService Residential,
which showed that she worked between 15 and 23 hours per week. Finally, Fenikova
submitted a proposed work schedule, in which she indicated that she could only commit to
part-time work. Thus, there is evidence in the record s upporting the CSM’s finding that
Fenikova was voluntarily underemployed.
Fenikova also challenges the amount of income imputed to her. But an assignment
of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is

7
forfeited “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Scheffler v. City of
Anoka, 890 N.W.2d 437, 451 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 2017).
Because Fenikova does not state how the CSM improperly calculated her imputed income,
and no prejudicial error is “obvious on mere inspection,” she forfeits her argument
regarding the amount of income the CSM imputed to her. Id.
II. The district court did not err by not requesting additional evidence of Jacobs’s
gross monthly income.

Fenikova next argues that the evidence proving Jacobs’s 2018 income and Bald Man
Brewing’s losses is not credible and insufficient for determining Jacobs’s income. If Jacobs
disclosed additional financial records to the district court, Fenikova argues, his gross
monthly income would be higher. This argument is unavailing.
“A court’s determination of income must be based in fact and will stand unless
clearly erroneous.” Newstrand v. Arend , 869 N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015)
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015). A court’s finding is clearly
erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” See Rasmussen v. Tw o Harbors Fish Co. , 832 N.W.2d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013)
(quotations and citations omitted). When determining whether the district court’s findings
are clearly erroneous, we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations. See Sefkow
v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).

8
Here, the CSM’s finding that Jacobs’s gross monthly income is $11,438 is supported
by the record. Jacobs submitted his 2018 income tax return, 4 a profit-and-loss statement
for Bald Man Brewing covering January to A ugust 2019, a balance sheet for Bald Man
Brewing covering January to August 2019, and several paystubs.
In determining Jacobs’s expected 2019 gross annual income, the CSM used the
paystubs and records from Bald Man Brewing. The paystubs show that Jacobs earns a bi-
weekly salary of $5,538.50, which the CSM used in calculating his expected 2019 salary
of $144,001. The profit-and-loss statement from Bald Man Brewing states that the
corporation lost $14,323.28 between January and August 2019, and the corporation’s
balance sheet confirms this loss. The CSM used this $14,323 figure to determine Jacobs’s
anticipated share of the corporation’s losses and, taking that share into account, estimated
Jacobs’ gross annual income as $137,943 in 2019.
Even so, the CSM determined that Jacobs’s expected 2019 gross annual income was
“projected” and therefore did not use this sum when eval uating the motion to modify
childcare support. Instead, the CSM used Jacobs’s 2018 reporte d income of $137,260, as
listed in Jacobs’s 2018 income tax return. This figure translates to a gross monthly income
of $11,438. Because the CSM’ s determination of Jacobs’s gross monthly income is
supported by the record, Fenikova’s argument th at the CSM erred in calculating Jacobs’s
income fails. See Newstrand, 869 N.W.2d at 685.

4 Fenikova asserts that this in come tax return is suspect as it is missing its K-1 schedule.
The CSM evaluated Jacobs’s 2018 income tax return and found it to be credible, a
determination to which we defer. See Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d at 210.

9
Fenikova also argues that the evidence su pporting the CSM’s determination is not
credible. She argues that, b ecause Jacobs’s new romantic partner does bookkeeping for
Bald Man Brewing, the financial records are suspect. But, by relying on them in its order,
the CSM implicitly found the records submitted by Jacobs to be credible, and we defer to
that determination. See Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d at 210; Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d
94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that “district court’s findings implicitly indicate[d]” that
it found certain evidence credible). Because the CSM determined that Jacobs’s 2018
income tax return was credible, Fenikova’s argument fails.
Thus, Fenikova’s argument that the CS M improperly relied on Jacobs’s financial
records when determining his gross monthly income fails.5
III. Fenikova’s other arguments fail.
Fenikova makes two other arguments in passing. We find neither persuasive.
First, Fenikova complains of the 20 15 order modifying child-support, which
reduced Jacobs’s basic child-support obligation and eliminated Jacobs’s childcare-support
obligation. But, to the extent that Fenikova seeks to challenge the 2015 order, her attempt
is untimely because notice of filing of the 2015 order modifying child support was served
on both parties and more than 60 days have passed since Fenikova received notice of filing
of that order. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 1 (establishing 60-day appeal period).

5 Fenikova also argues that Jacobs’s stipulated gross monthly income from the 2013 J&D
should apply. In modifying Jacobs’ childcare-support obligations, the district court found
that Jacobs’s income had changed “substantially.” See Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a)(1)
(2020). Thus, the income stipulated to in the J&D does not affect this appeal.

10
Second, Fenikova argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased her childcare
costs, warranting an increas e in childcare support. But, because the CSM adjudicated
Fenikova’s motion in 2019—before the pa ndemic—any impact that the COVID-19
pandemic has had on the couple’s childcare costs is outside of the record in this appeal and
therefore fails. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal).
Affirmed.