Kristina Marie Saenz, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1213

Kristina Marie Saenz, petitioner,
Appellant,

Brown County Human Services, petitioner,

vs.

Nicholas Lee Horman,
Respondent.

Filed September 13, 2021
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Brown County District Court
File No. 08-FA-19-129

Jacob M. Birkholz, Michelle K. Olsen, Birkholz & Associates, LLC, Mankato, Minnesota
(for appellant)

Kezia Smith, Killion Smith Law Firm, Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Pres iding Judge; Worke, Ju dge; and Slieter,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
In this child-support dispute, appellant-mother argues that the district court should
have determined that the term “unpaid” in th e parties’ stipulated judgment is ambiguous
and required respondent-father to reimburse her for certain medical expenses. We affirm.
2
FACTS
Appellant-mother Kristina Marie Saenz gave birth to a child (the child) in February
2016. Mother was married at the time, a nd her husband (husband) paid the medical
expenses incurred for the child ’s birth. Mother and her husband divorced in September
2018.
In May 2018, genetic testing establishe d that respondent-father Nicholas Lee
Horman is the child’s biolog ical father. In February 2019, petitioner Brown County
Human Services and mother f iled a complaint to establish parentage. Mother sought
payment from father for past child support, ongoing child support, medical support, child-
care costs, and pregnancy and confinement expenses.
On June 11, 2019, the partie s entered into a stipulation regarding custody, parenting
time, and support. Among other things, the par ties agreed that father’s past support was
$6,500, which he paid. Mother waived all other claims for past support “except unpaid
medical expenses.” Regarding “unpaid medical expenses,” the parties agreed,
“Reimbursement of unpaid Medical Expenses are RESERVED.” The parties also agreed
that
Uninsured and/or unreimbursed medical expenses shall be
apportioned according to each party’s proportionate income.
Father shall pay 68% and Mother shall pay 32% of the joint
children’s uninsured and/or unr eimbursed medical expenses.
To recover these costs, the requesting party must follow the
procedures set forth in Minnesota Statutes.

After the order incorporating the stipula tion was filed and judgment was entered,
father moved the district court to deny moth er’s request in the or iginal complaint for
3
payment of unreimbursed or uninsured health-care expenses. Father asserted that mother’s
request was barred by the plain language of the stipulated judgment because the issue of
“unpaid” medical expenses was reserved, and it appeared that the expenses mother sought
to recover had been paid and he never agreed to pay expenses that had already been paid.
The matter came before a child-support magistrate (CSM). The CSM found that the
term “unpaid” is unambiguou s and means “not paid”; thus , father was not required to
reimburse mother for medical expenses that ha d been paid. Mother requested review of
the CSM’s order. Mother request ed that the district court or der father to pay “$5,937.73
for his share of the PICS percentage of unreimbursed or ‘unpaid’ medical expenses
previously incurred by [her]” and $3,258.30 in pregnancy and birthing expenses. Mother
asserted that “unpaid” meant “u npaid to her.” She never disputed that “all the medical
expenses had been paid by [her] and/or her husband. The dispute was . . . that [father] was
never notified he was the father and [was not able] to put the child on his insurance, or pay
the bills as they came due . . . .”
The district court affirmed the CSM’ s order denying mother’s request for
reimbursement for medical expenses. The district court stated:
The language of the stipulation . . . is not ambiguous. It
reserved the question of reimbursement of unpaid medical
expenses. “Unpaid” means “out standing.” It does not have
any other reasonable meaning. The usual description of
medical expenses paid by a part y who seeks to recover some
or all of the expenses is “uninsured and unreimbursed medical
expenses,” which is a categor y of expenses specifically
addressed by a different provision in the parties’ stipulation.
The stipulation did not include any amount of past unpaid and
unreimbursed medical expenses. The county’s complaint
sought payment for pregnanc y and confinement expenses
4
without stating an amount; however, reimbursement of
pregnancy and birth expenses was not addressed in the
stipulation. Having found the stipulation’s language
unambiguous, the court will not consider the extrinsic evidence
received at the hearing.

This appeal followed.
DECISION
The parties dispute the meaning of a pr ovision in the stipulated judgment—
“Reimbursement of unpaid Medical Expenses are RESERVED.” We treat a stipulated
judgment as we would a contract for purposes of construction. Nelson v. Nelson , 806
N.W.2d 870, 872 (Minn. App. 2011). We revi ew de novo whether a stipulated provision
in a judgment is ambiguous, meaning it is susceptible to more than one reasonable
interpretation based on its language alone. Id. If there is no ambiguity, we apply the plain
meaning of the language. Id.
Mother argues that the district court e rred by determining that the term “unpaid”
was unambiguous. Mother “interpret[s] the term ‘unpaid’ to mean ‘unreimbursed,’” which
she asserts is as reasonable an interpretation as father’s interpretation that “‘unpaid’ means
that the bill has not been paid by either party.” She claims that because both interpretations
are reasonable, the term “unpaid” is ambi guous and the district court should have
considered parol evidence to de termine its meaning. Father a sserts that the district court
properly concluded that “unpaid” has only one reasonable meaning—not paid.
The word “unpaid” means “Not yet paid.” The American Heritage Dictionary 1897
(5th ed. 2011). In this case, that would mean a medical bill that has not been paid. As the
5
district court determined, it means a medical bill that is “outstanding.” Thus, the language
is not ambiguous because “unpaid” means a bill that is not yet paid.
Additionally, looking at the entire provision—“Reimbursement of unpaid Medical
Expenses are RESERVED”—reimbursement refers to amounts that father must convey to
mother for medical expenses that she pays be fore father compensates her for his share of
those expenses. Thus, if “unpaid” means, as mother claims, “unreimbursed,” this provision
would be “reimbursement of unreimbursed me dical expenses.” If the parties meant for
unpaid to mean unreimbursed, they woul d have used that word. But because
reimbursement and unpaid are used in a singl e sentence, they seemingly mean different
things.
Another provision in the stipulated judgme nt also indicates that unpaid means not
yet paid. The stipulated judgment provides, “Uninsured and/or unreimbursed medical
expenses shall be apportioned according to each party’s proportionate income. Father shall
pay 68% and Mother shall pay 32% of the joint children’s uninsured and/or unreimbursed
medical expenses.” Because there is a separate provision for unreimbursed medical
expenses, unpaid medical e xpenses mean something othe r than unreimbursed medical
expenses.
And yet another provision in the stipulated judgment in dicates that unpaid means
not yet paid. The parties agreed that father’s past support is “$6,500. All [other] amounts
of past due support, (except unpaid medical expenses), are hereby waiv ed by [m]other.”
This indicates that mother waived a claim to past-due support, but she reserved her right to
be reimbursed by father when she pays an unpaid—yet to be paid—medical bill. The
6
stipulated judgment is unambiguous, and “unpaid” means not yet paid by anyone—
outstanding.
Finally, as the CSM determined and the district court adopted, this meaning—“not
yet paid”—is reasonable under the circumstances. In this case it would be unreasonable to
order father to reimburse mother for expenses that mother’s husband paid when father was
not yet aware that he was the child’s father and which were incurred outside the statute of
limitations. See Minn. Stat. § 257.66, subd. 4 (2020) (stating district court must limit
liability for past support to the proportion th at the court deems just, which were incurred
in the two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action). Because the
language is not ambiguous, and “unpaid” means a bill that is not yet paid, the district court
appropriately denied mother’s request for reimbursement for medical expenses.
Affirmed.