Michael Charles Sasse, f/k/a Michael Charles Sasse Penkert v. Kathryn Elizabeth Penkert, f/k/a Delight Bernice Penkert, A14-440

Background

Michael Sasse and Kathryn Penkert divorced in 2011; judgment awarded joint legal custody, shared parenting, and set Sasse’s child support at $100/month with parenting time at 10–25% while Sasse was a veterinary student.
Parties stipulated in 2012 to review parenting time after Sasse’s graduation, anticipating a 50/50 schedule; Sasse graduated May 2013.
In August 2013 Sasse moved to modify custody/parenting time (seeking joint physical custody or evidentiary hearing, a new parenting-time schedule, and increased support); Penkert opposed and proposed her own schedule and support calculations.
The district court’s September 19, 2013 post-decree order adopted Penkert’s parenting-time schedule, set Sasse’s net child support at $983/month (retroactive to July 1, 2013), imputed income to Penkert, and denied a downward deviation.
After cross-motions to amend findings, the district court issued an amended post-decree order (Jan. 22, 2014); Sasse appealed. The Court of Appeals held the appeal timely and that Sasse’s October 24 filing was a proper Rule 52.02 motion for amended findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sasse)	Defendant's Argument (Penkert)	Held
Timeliness of appeal / tolling under Rule 104.01	Sasse argued his appeal was timely because a Rule 52.02 motion tolled the appeal period	Penkert argued Sasse’s filing was a motion to reconsider (not tolling) so appeal was untimely	Appeal timely: Penkert filed a proper Rule 52.02 motion that tolled the appeal period; Sasse’s appeal was within 60 days
Whether Sasse’s motion was a Rule 52.02 motion	Sasse contended his “motion for review” + memorandum met Lewis criteria for amended findings	Penkert contended Sasse merely reargued and didn’t meet Rule 52.02/Lewis requirements	Court held Sasse’s filing, read with his memorandum, was a proper motion for amended findings under Rule 52.02
Parenting-time modification and 25% statutory presumption	Sasse argued district court awarded him <25% time without findings to rebut statutory presumption and failed to consider best interests and prior 50/50 expectation	Penkert argued schedule was in children’s best interest, predictable, and avoided school commute issues	Reversed and remanded: district court abused discretion—insufficient findings to rebut 25% presumption, misapplied "primary residence" concept for summer schedule, and failed to make adequate best-interest findings
Child-support modifications (imputation, gifts, deviation)	Sasse argued the court miscalculated Penkert’s imputed income, should count financial support from her partner as income, and should deviate downward	Penkert argued her income imputation ($30,000/yr) was supported; partner’s contributions not shown to be regular gifts; no evidence justified deviation	Affirmed in part: district court’s imputation to $30,000/yr was supported; partner’s contributions not shown to be income; denial of deviation not an abuse due to lack of evidentiary record

Key Cases Cited

Huntsman v. Huntsman, 633 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 2001) (liberal construction of notices of appeal and appeal-timing rules)
Matson v. Matson, 638 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. App. 2002) (standard of review for parenting-time decisions)
Hagen v. Schirmers, 783 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. App. 2010) (statutory 25% parenting-time presumption can be rebutted with findings based on best interests and feasibility)
Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. App. 2014) (summer increases in parenting time do not necessarily change a child’s primary residence)
Lewis v. Lewis, 572 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. App. 1997) (requirements for a proper motion for amended findings under Rule 52.02)
Wallin v. Wallin, 187 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 1971) (district courts must state parenting-time bases with particularity for meaningful review)
Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. 2002) (district court’s broad discretion in child-support modifications)
Barnier v. Wells, 476 N.W.2d 795 (Minn. App. 1991) (regular, dependable gifts may be treated as income for child-support purposes)