In 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1237

In the Marriage of:

Roberta Jo Nickel, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Joshua Peter Nickel,
Respondent,

County of Cottonwood,
Respondent.

Filed June 30, 2025
Affirmed
Larson, Judge

Cottonwood County District Court
File No. 17-FA-18-318

Michelle K. Olsen, Tentinger Law Office, P.A., Apple Valley, Minnesota (for appellant)

Kenneth R. White, Law Office of Kenneth R. White, P.C., Mankato, Minnesota; and

Michael P. Kircher, Sunde, Olson, Kircher & Zender, P.L. C., St. James, Minnesota (for
respondent Joshua Peter Nickel)

Deja L. Weber, Cottonwood County Attorney, Windom, Minnesota (for respondent
County of Cottonwood)

2
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Larson , Judge; and Smith,
John, Judge.∗
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARSON, Judge
Appellant Roberta Jo Nickel (wife) appeals the district court’s order modifying
spousal maintenance. Wife challenges the district court’s use of the parties’ gross incomes
when determining whether a substantial change in circumstances had occurred, its
conclusion that the existing spousal-maintenance order had been rendered unreasonable
and unfair, and its findings as to her reasonable monthly expenses.1 We affirm.
FACTS
Wife and respondent Joshua Peter Nickel (husband) were married in 2006 and have
two joint minor children. Wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage in 2018. On October
1, 2018, the district court entered its judgment and decree (J&D) consistent with the parties’
marital-termination agreement. In relevant part, the J&D provided that husband would pay
$667 per month in temporary spousal maintenance to allow wife to homeschool the
children. Spousal maintenance would terminate after 144 months or if neither child was
being homeschooled, wife remarried, or wife died. The J&D also required husband to pay
$1,500 per month in child support.

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
1 Wife also asserted that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but
subsequently withdrew this argument.
3
On October 24, 2023, husband filed a motion to modify child support and terminate
spousal maintenance because wife had enrolled the children in public school and obtained
full-time employment as a teacher at the school. 2 Wife responded and requested that the
district court deny husband’s motion in its entirety. As part of the motion practice, wife
filed an affidavit wherein she confirmed that she accepted a full-time teaching position but
averred that the children were dual enrolled in public school and homeschool. Wife
indicated that her gross monthly income from this role was $3,592 and her net monthly
income was $2,870, and included a direct-deposit notice supporting these amounts. Wife
also stated that her expenses had increased from $2,000 per month at the time of the
dissolution to $4,859 per month and requested that husband continue to pay spousal
maintenance on this basis.
The district court heard arguments from both parties at a January 10, 2024 hearing.
Husband argued that, under the J&D, spousal maintenance should be terminated because
wife had enrolled the children in public school and accepted a full-time job. Husband also
noted that wife had not provided an itemization of her monthly expenses to support her
alleged increase in expenses. In response, wife admitted the children were “taking some
public-school classes,” but argued the J&D did not allow for termination of spousal
maintenance because the children were still partially homeschooled. Wife explained that
the children are at public school for the entire day but are homeschooled during “breaks”

2 When he filed this motion, husband’s child-support obligation was $1,689 per month and
his spousal-maintenance obligation was $750 per month, as a result of cost-of-living
adjustments.
4
and “in the evening.” Wife contended that, due to increased monthly expenses and general
cost increases caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, she still required spousal maintenance
despite her increased income. Wife offered to provide documentation verifying her
monthly expenses “for an in camera review.”
The district court left the record open for one week to allow wife to either provide
an itemized list of her monthly expenses or make a written argument to explain why she
did not need to disclose her monthly expenses. Wife thereafter submitted into the record
14 cancelled checks ranging in dates from August 2023 through December 2023. Some of
these checks indicated monthly expenses, including two $785 checks for rent; a $28.47
check, a $58.98 check , and a $96.40 check to “MN Energy”; and a $138.11 check, a
$159.27 check, and a $147.42 check to “Mtn Lake Municipal Utilities.” Other checks were
for one-time miscellaneous purchases, such as a t-shirt and cough drops.
On March 12, 2024, the district court signed an order terminating husband’s
spousal-maintenance obligation as of March 31, 2024. The district court reasoned that a
substantial change in circumstances had occurred that rendered the existing maintenance
obligation unreasonable and unfair. The district court cited three bases for this conclusion:
(1) wife’s unavailability to homeschool the children; (2) wife’s increased income; and
(3) wife’s lack of need. The district court also reduced husband’s child-support obligation
to $670 per month. Wife, thereafter, filed a motion to reopen the record. After wife failed
to appear at the scheduled hearing, the district court denied the motion to reopen the record.
Wife then asked the district court to reschedule the hearing, which the district court denied
on the basis that wife failed to show good cause.
5
Wife appeals.
DECISION
Wife challenges the district court’s decision to modify spousal maintenance. 3 We
review a district court’s decision to modify an existing spousal-maintenance order for an
abuse of discretion. Hecker v. Hecker, 568 N.W.2d 705, 709-10 (Minn. 1997). A district
court abuses its discretion when it “makes findings of fact that are not supported by the
record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and
the facts on record.” Madden v. Madden, 923 N.W.2d 688, 696 (Minn. App. 2019). We
review legal questions de novo. Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Minn. App.
2009). “To the extent that a modification decision depends on findings of fact, we apply a
clear-error standard of review . . . .” Madden, 923 N.W.2d at 696. In doing so, we (1) view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings; (2) do not find our own facts; (3) do
not reweigh the evidence; and (4) do not reconcile conflicting evidence. In re Civ.
Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22 (Minn. 2021); see also Ewald v.
Nedrebo, 999 N.W.2d 546, 552 (Minn. App. 2023) (citing Kenney in a family law appeal),
rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 2024). Thus, we

3 Wife’s statement of the issues indicates that she is also challenging the district court’s
decision to modify child support. But wife makes no substantive arguments on this issue.
Inadequately briefed issues are not properly before this court and, accordingly, we do not
address the district court’s decision to modify child support. See Melina v. Chaplin, 327
N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982). We also note that wife does not challenge the amount by
which the district court reduced husband’s spousal-maintenance obligation. We,
accordingly, do not address this issue. See Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464- 65
(Minn. 1944) (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed. It must be made to appear
affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [T]he burden of showing error rests upon the
one who relies upon it.”).
6
need not go into an extended discussion of the evidence to
prove or demonstrate the correctness of the findings of the
[district] court. Rather, because the factfinder has the primary
responsibility of determining the fact issues and the advantage
of observing the witnesses in view of all the circumstances
surrounding the entire proceeding, [our] duty is fully
performed after [we have] fairly considered all the evidence
and [have] determined that the evidence reasonably supports
the decision.

Kenney, 963 N.W.2d at 222 (quotations and citation omitted); see also Vangsness v.
Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472, 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing the clear-error
standard in a similar fashion).
A district court may modify a spousal-maintenance award if the moving party meets
their burden to show “[(1)] a substantial change in circumstances that [(2)] makes the
existing award unreasonable and unfair.” Madden, 923 N.W.2d at 696 (quotation omitted).
A substantial change in circumstances includes: “(1) substantially increased or decreased
gross income of an obligor or obligee; (2) substantially increased or decreased need of an
obligor or obligee; or (3) substantial changes in the federal or state tax laws that affect
spousal maintenance.” Minn. Stat. § 518.55 2, subd. 5b(b) (2024).
4 “If the moving party

4 The district court signed its order terminating husband’s spousal-maintenance obligation
on March 12, 2024. Accordingly, it applied Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2 (2022), to reach
its decision. The aspects of Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2, that pertain to modification of
maintenance have now been removed from that statute and are recodified at Minn. Stat.
§ 518.552, subd. 5b (2024). See 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 101, art. 2, §§ 5, at 871; 10, at 873.
And while there are some substantive differences between Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2,
and Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b, these differences do not affect the parties’ vested
rights because the district court based its decision on aspects of Minn. Stat. § 518A.39,
subd. 2, that also appear in Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b. Therefore, we apply Minn.
Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b. See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 617
N.W.2d 566, 575 (Minn. 2000) (stating that, generally, “appellate courts apply the law as
it exists at the time they rule on a case”).
7
makes such a showing, the district court may modify the maintenance award . . . by
applying the same statutory factors that are relevant to an initial award of spousal
maintenance, as those factors exist at the time of the modification motion.” Backman v.
Backman, 990 N.W.2d 478, 485 (Minn. App. 2023) (quotation omitted); see also Minn.
Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b(c).
Wife makes three arguments to challenge the district court’s decision to modify
spousal maintenance: (1) the district court erroneously relied on the parties’ gross incomes
rather than net income s; (2) the district court abused its discretion when it concluded the
existing order was unreasonable and unfair; and (3) the district court made inadequate
findings regarding wife’s reasonable expenses. We address each argument in turn.
A.
Wife first argues the district court legally erred when it relied on the parties’ gross
incomes rather than net incomes when deciding whether a substantial change in
circumstances had occurred. To support this argument, wife cites two prior decisions from
our court: Kostelnik v. Kostelnik, 367 N.W.2d 665 (Minn. App. 1985), rev. denied (Minn.
July 26, 1985), and Schmidt v. Schmidt, 964 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. App. 2021). We conclude
that both cases are distinguishable.
Kostelnik addressed the type of income a district court must evaluate when deciding
whether an obligor has the ability to pay spousal maintenance in the first instance. 367
N.W.2d at 670. Thus, while we decided the district court must use the obligor’s net income,
we did so while applying the subdivision related to the amount of maintenance initially
awarded, not the subdivision related to modification. See id.; see also Minn. Stat.
8
§ 518.552, subd. 2 (titled “Amount of maintenance”), subd. 5b (titled “Modification”)
(2024).5 Like Kostelnik, Schmidt also interpreted a different subdivision in the statute—
the subdivision related to an obligee’s “showing of need.” 964 N.W.2d at 226 (quoting
Curtis v. Curtis, 887 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn. 2016)); see also Minn. Stat. § 518.552,
subd. 1 (titled “Grounds”) (2024). We observed that the showing of need subdivision did
not specify whether the district court should consider gross or net income. Schmidt, 964
N.W.2d at 227. And, given the facts in the case, we concluded the district court abused its
discretion when it did not consider the obligee’s income -tax obligation because the
obligee’s income-tax obligation “may be determinative” of the obligee’s ability to support
herself. Id. at 224, 229.
Unlike Kostelnik and Schmidt, the subdivision applicable in this case directs that a
spousal-maintenance order may be modified upon a showing of “substantially increased or
decreased gross income of an . . . obligee” that renders the existing order “unreasonable
and unfair.” Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b(b)(1) (emphasis added). Further, central to
the Schmidt court’s reasoning was evidence in the record that the obligee’s income-tax
obligations “may be determinative” of whether the obligee had the ability to cover her
monthly expenses. 964 N.W.2d at 224, 227-28. The same is not true here, based on the
limited evidence wife submitted. Even taking as true that wife correctly described her net

5 Even if Kostelnik had interpreted and applied the modification subdivision, that decision
predates statutory amendments that require the district court to consider gross income when
determining whether to modify a spousal-maintenance obligation. See 2005 Minn. Laws
ch. 164, § 10, at 1893; Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b(b)(1).
9
income, the canceled checks wife submitted reflect that wife’s net income amply covers
her monthly expenses.
Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err when it used the parties’ gross
incomes to assess whether a substantial change in circumstances had occurred.
B.
Wife argues second that the district court abused its discretion when it concluded
the existing spousal-maintenance order was unreasonable and unfair. The district court
found three independent bases for this conclusion: (1) wife was no longer homeschooling
the children; (2) wife had a significant increase in gross income; and (3) wife had a
significant decrease in need. The district court only needed to find one substantial change
in circumstances to determine the existing spousal-maintenance award was unreasonable
and unfair. See Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b(b).6
Here, the district court’s finding that wife had a significant increase in gross income
is well supported by the record. Since the parties dissolved their marriage, wife accepted
a full-time teaching position. In her affidavit, wife indicated that her gross monthly income
from that position was $3,592 and her net monthly income was $2,870. This is a significant
increase from wife’s lack of any gross monthly income at the time of dissolution. See

6 Wife argues that the district court’s decision is inconsistent with the parties’ marital-
termination agreement as reflected in the J&D. But the district court was free to modify
maintenance based on a substantial change in circumstances notwithstanding the
provisions set forth in the J&D. See Hecker , 568 N.W.2d at 709 (“While that stipulation
represents the parties’ voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement . . . once it has
been merged into the judgment and decree, it does not operate as a bar to later consideration
of whether a change in circumstances warrants a modification.”).
10
Kossack v. Kossack, No. A22-0636, 2023 WL 4417381, at *3 (Minn. App. July 10, 2023)
(determining that district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing obligor’s spousal-
maintenance obligation where obligee obtained a full-time job and doubled her income
since dissolution); Orstad v. Orstad, No. C3-97-2284, 1998 WL 279212, at *2 (Minn. App.
June 2, 1998) (determining that district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing
obligor’s spousal-maintenance obligation where obligee’s net monthly income increased
from $660 to $2,111 since dissolution). 7 Further, the record supports the district court’s
determination that the existing spousal-maintenance award was unreasonable and unfair
because wife now earned more from her current employment than the combined total of
her spousal maintenance and child support. In fact, the record shows that wife’s gross and
net monthly income are now both greater than the $2,439 per month wife received in
combined monthly spousal-maintenance and child-support payments when husband filed
the motion for modification.
Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
determined that wife’s significant increase in gross income rendered the existing spousal-
maintenance award unreasonable and unfair.
C.
Finally, wife asserts that the district court made inadequate findings regarding the
parties’ reasonable expenses. But, reviewing the record, wife caused any inadequacy in
the findings. Despite the district court giving wife numerous opportunities to submit an

7 These cases are nonprecedential and, therefore, not binding. We cite nonprecedential
cases as persuasive authority only. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
11
itemized list of her monthly expenses, wife only submitted 14 cancelled checks, some of
which reflected one-time miscellaneous purchases. Based on the checks showing recurring
expenses, the district court found that wife established monthly expenses totaling $994.
Wife cannot now challenge the inadequacy of the findings when the findings are based
purely on the evidence she submitted into the record. See Tuthill v. Tuthill, 399 N.W.2d
230, 232 (Minn. App. 1987) (acknowledging that the district court’s findings lacked detail
but reasoning that the husband “ha[d] failed to present a complete picture of his assets and
debts making such findings impossible”); Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235,
243 (Minn. App. 2003) ( “On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure
to rule in her 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.”), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it granted husband’s motion to modify spousal maintenance.
Affirmed.