In re the Marriage of: Shima Shojaee Falavarjani v. Navid Tabrizi

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1517

In re the Marriage of:

Shima Shojaee Falavarjani, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Navid Tabrizi,
Respondent.

Filed May 6, 2024
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge *

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19AV-FA-20-2113

Kathryn M. Lammers, Carlo E. Faccini, Heimerl & Lammers, LLC, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Mary L. Hahn, Britt Ackerman, Hvistendahl, Moersch, Dorsey & Hahn, P.A., Northfield,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and

Reilly, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to

Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

REILLY, Judge

On appeal from judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, appellant argues that the

district court should not have (1) omitted respondent’s bonuses when calculating income

for purposes of child support and maintenance, and (2) treated appellant’s “dowry” of

certain gold coins as marital property. Because we discern no error with the determination

that respondent’s bonuses were not sufficiently dependable periodic payments to include

as income, or that the equitable division of marital property included the gold coins, we

conclude the district court acted within its discretion and affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Shima Shojaee Falavarjani and respondent Navid Tabrizi met in Iran and

were married on May 14, 2010, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Six months later, they held a

religious ceremony in Iran.

In November 2020, Falavarjani petitioned a Minnesota district court for dissolution

of marriage, requesting joint legal and sole physical custody of the parties’ three minor

children. The parties stipulated to joint legal and joint physical custody in July 2022. The

district court held a trial later that year on the outstanding issues involved in the dissolution

proceeding, including the division of assets and the calculation of spousal maintenance and

child support.

The district court entered a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage on January

27, 2023, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.06 (2022). Because of a clerical error, the district

court amended its findings a few days later on February 3, 2023. Tabrizi worked at Sleep

2
Number Corporation in the United States throughout the duration of the marriage, while

Falavarjani worked as the primary caregiver for the children. In the February 2023

amended findings, the district court determined that Tabrizi’s income and the

corresponding parental income available for child support (PICS) was $13,856 per month.

Shortly before separating, Tabrizi’s income increased—he received annual bonuses

because of Sleep Number’s rising profits during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the district

court did not include Tabrizi’s bonuses in its income calculation because the district court

found that the bonuses were unlikely to continue “due to the slowdown of consumer

purchasing.” Falavarjani was awarded temporary spousal maintenance totaling $4,000 per

month through January 1, 2027. The district court determined that Tabrizi’s child-support

obligation, a 100% share of the PICS, was $1,662 per month.

The district court also found that Falavarjani had ten gold coins in her possession

that were “given to [the couple] during the marriage ceremony held in Iran.” The district

court determined that it had jurisdiction over the ten gold coins as part of the dissolution

proceeding. As marital property, the district court divided the coins equally between

Falavarjani and Tabrizi.

The parties moved to amend the district court’s amended findings. In an August

2023 order, the district court granted Tabrizi’s motion to amend its calculation of the PICS

because it failed to include Falavarjani’s potential income and her income from spousal

maintenance. The PICS was amended to $15,233, with Falavarjani carrying a 35% share

and Tabrizi 65%. But the district court denied Falavarjani’s motions to include Tabrizi’s

bonuses in its income calculation, and to reconsider division of the gold coins. Based on

3
the revised PICS, the district court determined that Tabrizi owed child support totaling

$1,251 per month ($1,161 after subtracting Falavarjani’s own medical support obligation

of $90). Falavarjani appeals.

DECISION

Falavarjani argues the district court erred by (1) excluding Tabrizi’s bonuses in its

income calculation, and (2) distributing the ten gold coins as marital property. “In

dissolution cases, the district court has broad discretion regarding the division of property,

spousal maintenance and child support.” Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009).

I. Income

Falavarjani first argues the district court erred in calculating Tabrizi’s income

because the trial evidence “illustrate[s] a past regular history of bonus income being

received and fail[s] to indicate that bonus income would cease.”

“A court’s determination of income must be based in fact and will stand unless

clearly erroneous.” Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015)

(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015); see In re Civ. Commitment of

Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 222-23 (Minn. 2021) (outlining clear-error standard); Bayer v.

Bayer, 979 N.W.2d 507, 513 (Minn. App. 2022) (citing Kenney in a family-law appeal).

But whether a source of funds is considered income is a question of law reviewed de novo.

Sherburne Cnty. Soc. Servs. ex rel. Schafer v. Riedle, 481 N.W.2d 111, 112

(Minn. App. 1992).

“[G]ross income includes any form of periodic payment to an individual. . . .”

Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2022). “[B]onuses are forms of periodic payment and therefore

4
income.” Novak v. Novak, 406 N.W.2d 64, 68 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn.

July 22, 1987). Bonuses may be included as income if the district court finds that the bonus

is “the type of income which could or should provide a dependable source of child support.”

Haasken v. Haasken, 396 N.W.2d 253, 261 (Minn. App. 1986) (quotation omitted).

The district court determined that Tabrizi’s bonuses were not sufficiently regular

and dependable “periodic payment[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a). This conclusion is

supported by the record. In the 16 years Tabrizi worked for Sleep Number, bonuses were

“very rare[].” Because of the pandemic, Sleep Number’s business boomed, leading to large

annual bonuses for its employees like Tabrizi. But bonuses were based on Sleep Number’s

profitability, not necessarily Tabrizi’s performance as an employee. Tabrizi testified that

“due to supply chain constraints” and “stock go[ing] down,” Sleep Number was not

forecasting such high bonuses in the future.

Falavarjani argues the district court should have determined the bonuses were

dependable sources of income because Tabrizi received bonuses over a four-year period.

But Falavarjani fails to point to evidence documenting these bonuses, and our review of

the record indicates there is documentation of “Annual Incentive” bonuses on Tabrizi’s

paystubs for just two years—2020 and 2021. Partial documentation of two years of

bonuses, with no evidence the bonuses would continue, does not amount to the repetitive

certainty required to impute income. On this record we thus discern no error with the

district court’s conclusion that Tabrizi’s bonuses were not a sufficiently dependable source

of income to be included in his gross income for purposes of calculating child support and

spousal maintenance. See Haasken, 396 N.W.2d at 261.

5
II. Division of Gold Coins as Marital Property

To begin, Falavarjani asserts the district court lacked the authority to apportion ten

gold coins as part of the marriage dissolution. The district court concluded it “appropriately

retained jurisdiction over the gold coins.” Falavarjani thus appears to challenge the district

court’s jurisdiction finding, although she articulates it as an issue of the court’s authority.

See Moore v. Moore, 734 N.W.2d 285, 287 n.1 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn.

Sept. 18, 2007). Minnesota courts clearly have subject-matter jurisdiction over, and the

authority to divide property in, a marriage dissolution proceeding. Minn. Stat. § 518.58,

subds. 1, 2 (2022) (“Upon a dissolution of marriage . . . the court shall make a just and

equitable division of the marital property of the parties. . . .”). And, in her petition for

dissolution, Falavarjani requested the district court apportion the parties’ marital assets.

After concluding it had authority over the parties’ assets involved in the dissolution

proceeding, the district court determined the gold coins were marital property and divided

them equally between Falavarjani and Tabrizi. On appeal, Falavarjani essentially argues

that the gold coins are not a marital asset, but her dowry, a nonmarital property asset, and

that the district court’s division of the property was inequitable.

This court reviews de novo whether property is marital or nonmarital, but it defers

to the district court’s underlying findings of fact. Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644, 649

(Minn. 2008). If a district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, this court may “set the

findings aside.” Gill v. Gill, 919 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Minn. 2018); see Kenney, 963 N.W.2d

at 222-23. When parties to a dissolution challenge the district court’s division of their

6
marital property, appellate courts review that division for an abuse of discretion. Antone

v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002).

The nature of a married couple’s property is often a matter of timing. Gill,

919 N.W.2d at 303. Marital property generally includes property acquired during a

marriage, while nonmarital property includes property acquired before marriage. Minn.

Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b (2022) (defining “marital property” and “nonmarital property”).

Falavarjani and Tabrizi were married in Utah in May 2010, around six months before their

marriage ceremony in Iran. It is undisputed the gold coins were acquired as part of the

Iranian ceremony, and after the two were legally married in the United States. Thus, the

gold coins are presumptively marital property. See Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b.

Falavarjani asserts the gold coins are an Iranian dowry and therefore her nonmarital

property. Tabrizi testified that the coins were wedding gifts given to the couple jointly as

an investment to support their family. If, as Falavarjani asserts, Tabrizi gave her the gold

coins as part of an Iranian dowry or gift, 1 then they could be her nonmarital property. See

id. (“‘Nonmarital property’ means property . . . acquired as a gift, bequest, devise or

inheritance made by a third party to one but not to the other spouse. . . .”). A valid gift

requires the donor intend to make a gift, that the gifted property be delivered, and that the

donor absolutely dispose of that property. Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn.

1997). Falavarjani carried the burden of rebutting the presumption that the gold coins were

1 There was no expert testimony on Iranian marriage ceremonies, but we note generally
based on the parties’ collective testimony that an Iranian “dowry” is not something
produced by the bride’s family, but a gift provided by the husband or husband’s family to
his future wife, intended to put the parties in more equal bargaining positions.

7
marital property and proving the elements of a valid gift by clear and convincing evidence.

See id.; Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b (“The presumption of marital property is overcome

by a showing that the property is nonmarital property.”).

Falavarjani failed to put forth any evidence that the gold coins were a gift to her or

are otherwise her nonmarital property. See id. Tabrizi provided a spreadsheet of the gifts

received, denoting the gold coins as collective wedding gifts. Falavarjani did not provide

any alternate evidence. Neither party introduced evidence of the actual value of the gold

coins. 2 For that reason, the district court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and,

absent donative intent or an actual accounting of the coins’ value, the district court did not

otherwise err when it ruled that the ten gold coins are marital property. See Minn. Stat.

§ 518.58, subd. 1. We also conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when

it divided the gold coins, as marital property, equally and equitably.

Affirmed.

2 The parties also presented conflicting testimony about whether Falavarjani sold a few of

the gold coins during the marriage. The district court found Tabrizi’s testimony more
credible, and this court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations. Sefkow v.
Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).

8