In re the Marriage of: Beth Ostergaard Stillwell v. Harry Alan Stillwell
A16-114
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Beth Stillwell (mother) and Harry Stillwell (father) divorced in 2014; dissolution court found father had earning capacity and imputed $75,000/year when denying spousal maintenance. Neither party appealed that ruling.
- The dissolution judgment reserved child-support for later determination and invited either party to move to establish support.
- In 2015 mother moved to establish child support and sought imputation of $75,000 (later amended to $100,000). Father was found voluntarily underemployed in the child-support proceeding.
- The child-support court did not consider the 2014 dissolution evidence and instead applied Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 2, concluding only two imputations were feasible and choosing the statutory fallback: impute income at 150% of the minimum wage.
- Mother appealed, arguing the 2014 imputation of $75,000 was binding (res judicata/collateral estoppel) and that earning-capacity analysis should be the same for spousal maintenance and child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution court’s prior imputation of $75,000 binds the later child-support determination | Mother: 2014 finding on earning capacity was on the merits and precludes relitigation; court must use $75,000 | Father: Child-support determination is a separate statutory inquiry; court must assess income under current child-support statutes and facts | Court: Not bound. Res judicata/collateral estoppel doesn’t bar new child-support analysis; child-support motion is a distinct legal issue requiring current facts |
| Whether the district court properly imputed income and correctly used 150% of minimum wage under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 2 | Mother: Court should have relied on prior detailed earning-capacity analysis to impute $75,000 | Father: Statute provides three exclusive methods; given the record and lack of current evidence, 150% of minimum wage was the permissible method | Court: Affirmed. Statutory scheme required court to use one of three methods and to base imputation on circumstances at time of motion; 150% of minimum wage was appropriate given the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. 1984) (district court has broad discretion in child-support and family support determinations)
- Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2013) (court must independently determine gross income under statutory scheme)
- Aumock v. Aumock, 410 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. App. 1987) (when support is reserved, later establishment must be based on facts at time of application)
- Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 1994) (limited application of res judicata/collateral estoppel in family-law matters where legal issues differ)
- Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. App. 2015) (income determinations must be based in fact and will stand unless clearly erroneous)