In re the Marriage of: Tiffany Elizabeth Jean Banerjee, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1224

In re the Marriage of:
Tiffany Elizabeth Jean Banerjee, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Animesh Banerjee,
Appellant.

Filed April 26, 2021
Affirmed
Peterson, Judge*

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-14-6900

Rhia Bornmann Spears, Bornmann Family Law PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Aleksandra Ljubisavljevic, Aleksandra Lj ubisavljevic Law Office, LLC, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Gaïtas, Judge; and Peterson,
Judge.

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

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
PETERSON, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the district cour t’s denial of his motion to modify child
support, arguing that the dist rict court erred by failing to consider the parties’ equal
parenting time and the decrease in his gross income. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-father Animesh Banerjee and respondent-mother Tiffany Elizabeth Jean
Banerjee were married in 2010 and have one minor child, who was born in 2011. Mother
petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in October 2014. A December 2015 judgment
and decree of dissolution awarded the partie s joint physical custody of the child and
awarded mother sole legal custody. Mother received more parenting time than father. In
a June 2016 amended judgment and decree, th e district court awarded the parties joint
physical and joint legal custody of the child and ordered that the parties would have equal
parenting time beginn ing on January 1, 2 017. The amended judgm ent and decree also
ordered that father pay mother a net child -support obligation of $869 per month based on
a 10-45% parenting-time adjustment, which refl ected the parties’ parenting time before
January 1, 2017. The district court did not separately determine a child-support obligation
that would apply beginning on January 1, 2017, when equal parenting time was to begin.
In June 2020, father moved to modify chil d support. He alleged that there had been
two substantial changes in circumstances since June 2016: (1) a substantial change in the
parenting-expense adjustment because the pa rties had equal parenting time beginning in

3
2017; and (2) a substantial decrease in his gross income because he lost his job due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
At a hearing on father’s motion held before a child-support magistrate (CSM), father
testified that he is a software engineer and was self-employed as a contractor, but he had
been unemployed since March 31, 2020, when he was laid off because of the COVID-19
pandemic. Father stated that he had rece ived $234 per week in state unemployment
benefits and $600 per week in federal pandemic unemployment benefits. He said that his
state unemployment benefits ended on July 4. He “wasn’t exactly sure” when his federal
benefits were scheduled to end, but he believe d that they would end at the end of July.
Father testified that those benefits were hi s only sources of income . He did not provide
any documentation to prove that he was laid off and did not submit any documents
regarding his self-employment income.
Mother submitted an affidav it in which she stated that father owned a duplex as
rental property and collected rent from the residents. She also testified at the hearing that
she had helped father rent th e duplex. Father admitted that he owned a duplex, but he
denied that he was receiving income from the property. He acknowledged that he did not
provide any documentation or records regarding the duplex’s finances.
Based on father’s testimony, the CSM foun d that father received $3,611 per month
in state unemployment benefits and federal ai d. The CSM also found that father did not
submit any documentary evidence about rental income he was receiving from the duplex
and that father’s actual gross monthly income was unknown.

4
The CSM denied father’s motion to modify child support because father failed to
meet his burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances that renders the child-
support order unreasonable and unfair. The CSM found that father’s claim that the state
and federal unemployment benefits are the only income he re ceives was not credible and
concluded that because father “faile d to provide info rmation regarding all sources of
income he may have,” his child-support oblig ation could not be pr operly calculated.
Because father’s gross monthly income could not be calculated, the CSM did not address
father’s argument regarding equal parenting time.
Father moved for a district court judge to review the CSM’s order. The district court
denied the motion for review and affirmed the CSM’s order. Father appeals.
DECISION
When the district court affirms the CS M’s decision, the CSM’s decision becomes
the decision of the district court. Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 673 N.W.2d 528, 530 n.2 (Minn.
App. 2004). We review a district court’ s decision regarding the modification of child
support for an abuse of discretion. Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App.
2017). A district court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or its decision is
against logic and the facts on record. Id.
An order for child support may be modified upon a showing that there has been a
substantial change in circumstances that makes the order unreasonable and unfair. Minn.
Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (2020). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that
there has been a substantial change in circumstances and that the change makes the existing
order unreasonable and unfair. Rose v. Rose , 765 N.W.2d 142, 145 (Minn. App. 2009).

5
Father argues that he demonstrated one chan ge in circumstances because the parties have
equal parenting time, which is not reflected in the child-support order, and a second change
in circumstances because he is no longer employed and his income has been dramatically
reduced.
Equal Parenting Time
Father contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider
that he and mother currently have equal parenting time, which began in 2017. His
argument appears to refer to the parenti ng-expense adjustment that applies when
calculating child support. The parenting-expense adjustment is based on the presumption
that parents incur costs for car ing for a child when they exercise pare nting time. Minn.
Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1(a) (2020). Accordi ngly, when determining child support, courts
must account for the amount of each parent’s parenting time. Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6)
(2020); see Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 2 (2020) (setting forth formula for calculating
parenting-expense adjustment based on parenting time).
When the application of the child-support guidelines “to the current circumstances
of the parties results in a calculated court orde r that is at least 20 percent and at least $75
per month higher or lower than the current support order,” a presumption arises that there
has been a substantial change in circumstances and a rebuttable presumption arises that the
existing order is unreasonable a nd unfair. Minn. Stat. § 518A. 39, subd. 2(b)(1) (2020).
Father argues that because he and mother now have equal parenti ng time, “applying the
child-support guidelines to the changed circumstances of equal parenting time would result

6
in a child-support obligation that is at least 20 percent less than the extant obligation,” and,
therefore, it is presumed that there has been a substantial change in circumstances.
Father correctly notes that the CSM did no t apply the parenting-expense adjustment.
But the CSM’s failure to do so was not error. Even if equal parenting time was a substantial
change in circumstances, the CSM could no t determine father’s child-support obligation
because the first step when ca lculating child support is to determine gross income, and
father did not present sufficient evidence to determine his gross income.
Substantial Decrease in Gross Income
A substantial decrease in the obligor’s gr oss income is a substantial change in
circumstances that can justify a modification of child support. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39,
subd. 2(a)(1). Father alleged that his income decreased substantially because he was laid
off due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On appeal , father argues that his state and federal
unemployment benefits were his only source of income, and the district court failed to
consider that those benefits would end in July 2020.
When the district court affirms the CS M’s decision, the CSM’s decision becomes
the decision of the district court. Kilpatrick, 673 N.W.2d at 530 n.2. “A court’s
determination of income must be based in fa ct and will stand unless clearly erroneous.”
Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotations omitted), review
denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015).
[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.
That is, we examine the record to see if there is reasonable
evidence in the record to support the court’s findings. And
when determining whether a finding of fact is clearly
erroneous, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to

7
the verdict. To conclude that findings of fact are clearly
erroneous we must be left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made.

Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and
citations omitted). Also, this court defers to a district court’s credibility determinations.
Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
The district court found that father received state and federal unemployment
benefits. But the court also found that, be cause father did not pr ovide any information
regarding his rental property, other than his testimony, he had additi onal income that he
did not disclose. The district court therefore concluded that father’s gross monthly income
was unknown and his child-support obligation could not be properly calculated.
When calculating each parent’s child-sup port obligation, the court must first
determine each parent’s gross income. Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b) (2020). Gross income
includes “any form of periodic payment to an individual.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a)
(2020); see Minn. Stat. § 518A.30 (2020) (addre ssing income from se lf-employment or
operation of a business).
At the motion hearing, father admitted that he owned a duplex. Mother testified that
father had rented the duplex and that she had helped him find tenants. Although father
testified that he was no longer receiving rent payments for the duplex, he did not present
any additional evidence regarding rental income from the duplex. Because we must defer
to the district court’s credib ility determinations, and father did not present any evidence
that substantiated his testimony that he was not receiving income from the duplex that he

8
owned, there is no basis for us to conclude th at the finding that father did not disclose his
entire income is clearly erroneous.
Father also appears to argue that his gross income was substantially decreased even
if rental income is considered. This argument fails, however, because father did not submit
any evidence that the district court found cr edible regarding the amount of his rental
income. Because the reco rd supports the finding that father failed to disclose all of his
sources of income, the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that father
failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that there wa s a substantial change in
circumstances that makes the 2016 child-support order unreasonable and unfair.
Affirmed.