In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier
2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 77
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Denise Spanier appeals a district court decision denying her motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing.
- The case concerns custody of three children; Spanier seeks custody of the two younger children.
- Divorce decree gave respondent Terence Spanier sole physical custody with joint legal custody; Spanier had parenting time.
- Spanier initially stationed out of Minnesota and was deployed; parenting-time arrangements changed several times, including equal parenting time when Spanier returned to Minnesota.
- Spanier moved back to Minnesota in 2011 and in September 2013 sought a modification based on deployment orders to Arlington, VA in 2014.
- District court declined to modify custody, ruling no change of circumstances since the original order, and held no evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying modification without an evidentiary hearing. | Spanier argues a prima facie change of circumstances exists. | Spanier argues no significant change since the original order; the move is a foreseeable consequence of employment. | No error; ruling affirmed that no prima facie change of circumstances was shown. |
| Whether the correct “prior order” is used for change-of-circumstances analysis under § 518.18(d). | The 2010 parenting-time order should be the prior order for analysis. | The original 2009 custody order (divorce decree) should be the prior order. | Correctly held that the 2009 original custody order governs; 2010 parenting-time order does not modify custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008) (prima facie modification standard; evidentiary hearing depends on prima facie case)
- Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. 1981) (significant change of circumstances required; preliminary burden on movant)
- Szurzynski v. Szurzynski, 732 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. App. 2007) (prima facie showing governs whether an evidentiary hearing is required)
- Boland v. Murtha, 800 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. App. 2011) (de novo review of certain determinations in modification appeals)
- Evenson (In re Child of Evenson), 729 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. App. 2007) (change of circumstances must be significant; not a continuation of prior problems)
- Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz, 438 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. App. 1989) (change in circumstances must be a real change since the prior order)
- Larson v. Larson, 400 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. App. 1987) (foreseeability of changes not a stand-alone barrier to modification)