Cited by

“A modification of support is generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the responding party.” (citing 7 Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd.

d 478, 481 (Minn. App. 2002).

Mother also relies on Bormann v. Bormann, in which we noted that “modification of support is generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the responding party.”

ility periodically” to determine whether “they can return to work,” the district court improperly placed the burden on him to show “what was currently takin g place with [his] social security disability benefits and why there was a stop loss for the derivative payment.” Caselaw is clear that t he “moving party has the burden of proof in support-modification proceedings.”

Id.; (“Determining whether an existing support obligation is unreasonable and unfair .

Bormann v. Bormann , -81 (Minn. App. 2002).

-81 (Minn. App. 2002); see Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd .

See Bormann v. Bormann , d 478, 482 (Minn. App. 2002) (remanding denial of modification motion due to inadequate factual findings and observing that ruling on such motions “generally involves (but is not necessarily limited to) a comparison of the obligor’s existing obligation with what the obligation would be if it were modified”).

“A modification of support is generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the responding party.” (emphasis added).

-81 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that the party seeking modification carries the burden in “support -modification proceedings”).

2(a) (2018); -81 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that moving party bears burden of proof).

Bormann v. Bormann , -81 (Minn. App. 2002).

2(a) (2016); -81 (Minn. App. 2002).

2(a) (2016); -81 (Minn. App. 2002).

2(a) (2016); -81 (Minn. App. 2002).

“A modification of support is generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the responding party.”

2 (2016); Bormann v. Bormann , -81 (Minn. App. 2002) (support); (maintenance) (quotation omitted).

Citing Bormann v. Bormann , husband asserts that this court’s review is limited to determining whether the district court’s findings support its conclusions of law because wife did not obtain a transcript of the hearing on the contempt motion.

Because no transcript of the hearing was provided, this court’s review “is limited to determining whether the findings support the district court’s conclusions of law.”

15 (2012), the appellate courts have previously held that the modification should be retroactive to the date of notice of the motion unless the district court specifies another date supported by factual findings or a statute directs an alternate date, –83 (Minn. App. 2002).

“The moving party has the burden of proof in support-modification proceedings.” (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 304 Minn. 583, 584, ).

“The moving party has the burden of proof in support-modification proceedings.”

review denied (Minn. Aug.