Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja

*311 CRIPPEN, Judge, dissenting. 1. Standard of review. Examining the trial court’s exercise of discretion, we must decide “whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458 , 246 N.W.2d 565, 569 (1976). As to the trial court’s child support determination, the subject of this opinion, the case turns on the question whether the trial court’s findings sustain its conclusions. Part of this review concerns the trial court’s exercise of judgment in the circumstances of the case. In addition, however, it must be determined whether the trial court findings adequately address critical factors; this is the determinative question on appeal of the child support decision. 2. The standard of law and the trial court’s findings of fact. The modified support award should be sufficient to meet the needs of the children. Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(2) (1986); see id,., § 518.64, subd. 2 (1986) (trial court to take into consideration the needs of the children in modification proceedings). Unlike the decision on appellant’s claim for maintenance, the current support determination should take into account the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved. Id., § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(3). Thus, in deciding the amount of child support, it is critically important that respondent had earnings of $139,000 in 1981 but currently has earnings of approximately $345,000. To determine the modified amount of child support, the trial court’s primary task was to find the facts as to the current needs of the children, taking into account the standard of living of their parents. It was reversible error for the trial court to omit this finding of fact. See Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn.1986) (mandate for trial court findings on child support factors). Deference to the rule of law on the issue requires that we remand for further trial court proceedings on this fact question. Appellant submitted evidence that the current monthly needs of the children total $3,380.75, including $1120 for schooling. A referee’s findings, adopted by the trial court, state only that appellant represents that these are the reasonable needs of the children. The findings include no reference to conflicting evidence and no decision whether appellant’s representations are true. Of these claimed needs, $2,100.75 will not be met with the trial court’s support award of $1200 plus schooling costs. The referee’s adopted findings also recite all statutory factors, including the reasonable needs of the minor children, as “considerations” calling for a $1200 support award. A fact which is not determined is not given the consideration required by Moylan and the long line of similar supreme court holdings on exercise of discretion in bench trial determinations. Upon review of the referee’s decision in the case, the trial court also found that the payment of $1200 support and schooling costs when combined with (appellant’s) resources will more than adequately provide for the minor children’s reasonable needs and will allow them to enjoy the standard of living they would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved. The finding is no different than the statement by the referee. Recitation of the needs factor is not a substitute for a finding of fact on the subject. What are the reasonable needs of the children? Is the evidence on their needs inflated by $2100? Is the mother to contribute $2100 while the father contributes $2320? If the trial court believes it appropriate that a considerable portion of the needs of the children be paid from the resources of the mother, another fact question is raised. The trial court found that appellant represents that she has no income other than [respondent's spousal maintenance payments [$2400] * * * and that she currently has reasonable, household expenses for herself alone of $2,895.25 per month. *312 Is this representation true? Does appellant have earnings or resources to contribute to support of the children? What are they? The reasonableness of the trial court’s child support award could not be determined by that court or ours without particularized findings on the reasonable needs of the children and the resources of appellant that might be applied toward these needs. We must remand for further proceedings leading to these findings. Given the voluminous remands ordered in the wake of Moylan and other decisions on the same rule, one might surmise that enough has been said — the proposition is settled. It is evident that this is not so — there must be continued, careful attention to the mandate for findings so that it is properly understood and uniformly followed, and so that the judiciary is increasingly faithful in demonstrating application of the rule of law in making discretionary decisions. 3. The trial court’s conclusion of law. In addition, because the record amply demonstrates respondent’s resources, it is observable that it would be an abuse of discretion for the trial court to characterize its award “reasonable and fair under the circumstances,” as it found, if any significant sacrifice is required of appellant or the children. Respondent, says the trial court, has gross monthly earnings of over $28,-000. His net monthly earnings, according to trial court findings, are approximately $18,800, plus monthly retirement contributions of over $4000 and benefits from another annual gross receipt of $30,000. Respondent “represents” reasonable monthly household expenses of $8858, excluding maintenance and support payments. Clearly, respondent has unlimited ability to pay whatever is reasonably needed. 4. Decisions on appeal. Because I would reverse and remand on the child support issue, I respectfully dissent. I join the majority in its decisions on other issues presented in this appeal.