Marriage of DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa
309 N.W.2d 755
Minn.
1981
Check Treatment

*1 paid have and insurer here not in fact $25,000 weekly com-

threshold amount

pensation qualify which would for the them third-party

offset because the settlement they

resulted in reimbursement of what had

actually paid prior to its and in execution extinguished

the credit which in effect their

obligation compensation pay in the fu-

ture ordinary until its exhaustion.

understanding, reimbursement they apply

credit which would to become “weekly

entitled to the are offset com-

pensation” they paid. which We dis- legisla-

cern no intention 176.101,

ture language in the of section

subd. to include the reim- amounts so $25,-

bursed and in the credited threshold compensation

000 of “weekly paid,” . . .

in our provision view to so construe this contrary

would be both to the remedial usually given

construction the Workers’

Compensation pur- apparent Act and to the 176.101,

pose grant of section subd.

offset employer to an and insurer who have

actually paid employee compen- weekly $25,000. totaling

sation

Employee is awarded attorneys fees of

$400.

Affirmed. Marriage

In re the of Pedro DeLa

ROSA, petitioner, Appellant, ROSA, Respondent.

Elena DeLa

No. 50737.

Supreme Court Minnesota.

Aug. *2 McCormick, University

Robert L. Student Service, Minneapolis, Legal William Mau- pins, Bloomington, appellant.

Hoke, Roehrdanz, Bigelow, Chamberlain Chamberlain, & Goldsmith and Paul W. Minneapolis, respondent.

AMDAHL, Justice. marriage proceeding,

In this dissolution petitioner, Rosa, appeals Pedro DeLa a awarding from district court order resti- Rosa, respondent tution to the Elena DeLa ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‍support peti- for financial during his education. We remand entry this case court trial judgment opinion. with consistent this parties

The case in this werе married July time, California on 1972. At that college degree had a peti- beginning undergraduate tioner was his ed- parties understanding ucation. The had an would work and petitioner undergrad- while he obtained his degrees. uate and medical began pre-medical Petitioner his studies in the California fall of 1972.1 Between petitioner pursued 1973 and while a Degree, respondent time, B.S. worked full holding positions successive as an elementa- schoolteacher, ry youth employment di- rector and an admissiоns director. moved to this state so that tioner could attend medical school at University Respondent of Minnesota. job obtained a full-time staff writer newspaper, position with a local she cur- rently holds. parties separated in November of Respondent paid the rent and utili-

ties for that month. Petitioner filed for following year dissolution his second medical school and the case was tried July completed 1979 after he had his third year. He degree obtained his medical June 1980. argues appli-

1. Petitioner law California argument cable to this case. We find that unpersuasive. nance separation, to their was under Prior Minn.Stat. 518.552 § income, Otis, primary source of financial thus (Minn.1980).3 Otis v. 299 N.W.2d 114 permitting her husband to focus his ener- Respondent was awarded for contri- obtaining undergraduate ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‍gies upon de- butions she made to education.4 entering attending gree, medical school. The *3 grounded trial court’s award was in The trial court found that equity represented and restitution of the $41,000 approximately during eаrned cover- support respondent provided pe- to parties’ joint ture which was used for the during titioner attending the time he was living expenses. Petitioner’s contributions college Payment and medical school. was nominal; $2,300 were he earnеd and re- ordered on an installment in basis increas- Veterans’ benefits in the ceived educational ing petitioner’s amounts since financial situ- $9,031. sum of He also received a total expected improve. ation was to grant to attend mediсal school in the sum of parties appealed.5 Both This case $5,680. Petitioner had incurred student presents impression issues of first in this $10,000 approximately at loans of the time question state. The initial before us is separation. reveals that of The rеcord tui- whether the trial authority court had to petitioner’s undergraduate tion for and equitable make an to award during parties’ educations the medical mar- the provided to $8,811.2 riage roughly was during the time he was a full-time specific testimony Therе was no concern- Secondly, student. we must determine ing payment by individual items of the re- by whether the amount awarded the trial spective parties. kept All funds were in a court was an abuse of or discretion other- pool. parties The commоn owned no real wise erroneous. property and had for the most divided argues Petitioner that because there is an personal property by agree- their modest specific absence of a statute authorizing ment. restitutionary relief incident to a dissolu- trial, respondent At the time of was ad- tion, power the trial court was without to mittedly self-supporting, earning an annual question. disagree. make the award in We $15,600. salary approximately For that reason, properly Although the triаl court statutory concluded dissolution is a authority was not entitled to mainte- action and the of the trial court is undergraduate (emphasis added). Respon- 2. Petitioner’s tuition was 299 N.W.2d at 117 $1,780. pursue The record reflects that the direct cost dent does assеrt that she intends to petitioner’s year first of medical school in- training. further education or books, cluding petitioner’s lab fees and tuition $5,431. 1977, following 4. trial was As The court utilized the formula of November expended approximately petitioner’s detеrmining the award: school, year given second $6,397 medical a cost of respondent’s financial contribution to com- year. for the full munity during college fund and medical school Otis, In 3. Otis v. we noted that both conditions less (1980) of Minn.Stat. § 518.552 must be met petitioner’s financial contribution to commu- appropriate. before an award of maintenance nity during college fund and medical school finding There must be a seek- excluding grants student loans and ing maintenance: equals (a) property, including restitutionary respondent. ($41,000 Lacks sufficient mari- award to him, = property apportioned provide -$11,331 $29,669). tal to to needs, especially during for his reasonable by period education, training 5. Cross-motions to dismiss were made or respective parties. Respondent (b) adequately support failed to file is unable to himself days considering her notice of review within 15 after ser- after all relevant circumstances appeal required through employment appropriate vice of notice of or is the by Minn.R.Civ.App.P. The custodian of a child whose condition or cir- notice of re- therefore, appropriate untimely cumstances make it that the view was this court cus- required employment by todian not be will to seek decline to review the issues raised re- spondent appeal. outside the home. on this 758 statute, by self-support. weigh equities heavily to that Me

limited Melamed, 716, providing remedy favor of working v. 286 N.W.2d 717 to the lamed guided courts are (Minn.1979), the district such a situation and the district equitable principles determining equitable authority courts have the pro- rights parties upon vide that and liabilities of relief.6 marriage relationship. dissolution Englund Englund, 227, 286 v. Minn. Christenson, 507, 281 Minn. v. Christenson (1970), recognized 175 N.W.2d we 461 162 N.W.2d The dis right in a of one divorce action to inherent court therefore has trict joint recover expended monies ex- grant equitable “as the facts in each relief penses original expectation if there was an justice may ends of particular case and the repayment. Id. at 175 N.W.2d at Johnston, requirе.” v. See Johnston McGough McGough, 463. See 311 Minn. *4 81, 86, 249, (1968). Minn. 158 N.W.2d 254 381, 384, 885, (1977). 249 N.W.2d 888 Al- though the is sup- evidence insufficient to presents The case at bar the com case, port finding such a in the instant spouse mon situation where one has fore expectation had a reasonablе enjoyment the gone immediate of earned that she would be rewarded for her efforts pursue to other income enable the to by higher living a standard when education on full-time basis. advanced began practicing medicine. We find Typically, this is sаcrifice made with the that the trial court not abuse did its discre- expectation enjoy that the will equitable tion in making an award to re- higher standard of in the future. spondent for the pro- she working the the spouse Because income of petitiоner during vided to schooling his living expenses, used for usually is there is light of the facts and circumstances of this property little accumulated marital to be ease. prior divided when the dissolution occurs to Respondent the attainment urges of ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‍the rewards this court to hold that degree concomitant with the advanced or or earning education increased Furthermore, professional capacity property license. the is marital within the working spouse meaning entitled (1980), is not to mainte 518.58 § Minn.Stat. thus (1980) nance under entitling § Minn.Stat. 518.552 her present as to a division of the has ability there been a demonstrated value of that In asset.7 decisions which jurisdictions disagree. 6. Courts in other g. have these courts considered e. Compare, Lynn, working the issue of a entitlement to with spouse’s supra, Mahoney, supra. relief incident to a dissolution where that recognize Courts that have refused to a prop marriage during spouse the the stu supported erty interest of this cases have done type so jurisdictions dеnt spouse’s education. grounds degree on the that an advanced or working which have to allowed a the recovery education attributes, lacks traditional property rulings divergent have spouse based their Graham v. Graham, 194 Colo. 429, 574 P.2d 75 theories. bеen Awards on the upheld (1978); Aufmuth, Aufmuth v. 89 Cal.App.3d ground that the student spouse’s capacity (1979) 446, 152 668 overruled in Cal.Rptr. subject earnings increased is a marital asset to grounds, on other Lucas v. Lucas, 27 Cal.3d Marriage re equitable distribution, Horst (1980); 808, 614 285, P.2d 166 853 Cal.Rptr. 1978); (Iowa, mann, 263 N.W.2d 885 that the Todd v. Tоdd, 786, 272 78 Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. degree or license constitutes mari professional (1969); earnings 131 that future do not consti tal Inman, Inman v. 578 S.W.2d property, 266 subject tute a vested interest to distri present (Ky.App.1979); v. No. Lynn Lynn, M-9842-7 bution, Wilcox, Wilcox 173 v. 365 661, Ind.App. (N.J.Super.Ct. 1980), Dec. Ch.Div., filed ap (1977); earning N.E.2d 792 increased 1981); docketed, Feb. v. Ma peal Mahoney although capacity not marital property 175 honey, 443, 419 A.2d N.J.Super. 1149 working has aided and enhanced its (1980); See Moss, Moss v. 80 Mich.App. Stern, Stern v. 66 N.J. development. 340, 331 (1978); 264 N.W.2d 97 Daniels v. Daniels, 20 A.2d 257 (1961), Ohio 458, 185 Op.2d N.E.2d working has an сlaim equitable 7. Respondent’s testified that expert present for her Hubbard past investment, Hubbard, value of petitioner’s completed ed- professional (Okl.1979). 603 P.2d 747 The method of calcu ucation was $246,478. lating subject an award is also a which upon hеld, equals have so the student had obtain- degree profession- ed either an advanced or equitable working spouse award to prior al license to the dissolution. That is formula, respondent this Under is entitled and we situation here therefore find tо the sum of opposed to the by inapposite. the cases cited $29,669 figure awarded the trial court.10 Having concluded that ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‍the trial court in The case is remanded to the trial court properly equitable this case allowed an re- with priоr directions to vacate the judg- covery to for the sup- marital judgment ment and to enter in accordance port petitioner during his opinion,11 with this with interest to be education, we must consider whether the awarded from the original date of the judg- аmount awarded constituted an abuse of ment. It discretion. should be noted we have nev-

er this addressed issue and that the trial TODD, Justice (concurring part, dis- guidelines court did not have the benefit of senting part). determining proper award. I concur in portiоn majority It is this Court’s view that opinion which equitable affirms the award should have been limited to the mo of the trial court permit recovery in a *5 expended by respondent petition nies proceeding by divorce a former living expenses any er’s аnd contributions support. educational petitioner’s made toward direct educational However, affirming since we are eq- résult, costs. To achieve this we subtract uitable of the trial court in such respondent’s earnings from her own procеedings, I do not believe it is necessary expenses. imputing This has the effect of granted to cast the relief in a mathematical living expenses one-half of the and all the formula. Under all the facts and circum- expenses spouse. educational to the student record, stances of this I would affirm the respondent’s formula subtracts from $29,669 award of to Elena DeLa Rosa. couple’s living contributions one-half of the expenses, that being amount the contribu

tions of the two which were not costs;

used for direct educational

working spouse’s financial contributions joint living expenses and educational

costs of student

less

n (working spouse’s financial contribu- plus spouse’s

tions student 8 financial con- education)

tributions less cost of cpurt 8. The financial contributions of the student 10. Because the trial did not account earnings any includes by respondent student the income earned which was loans, grants, stipends or other funds оbtained utilized for her own and did not con- spouse. petitioner’s expenses sider educational or his grants loans, higher student it arrived at a $41,000 (respondent’s contributions) figure. - ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‍[$41,000 (respondent’s financial contribu- V2 tions) $2,300 (petitioner’s earnings) + + may periodic 11. Thе trial court either devise a $9,031 (petitioner’s benefits) veterans’ + payment plan payment lump or order a sum $5,680 (petitioner’s grant) medical school + after due consideration of - $10,000 (petitioner’s loans) student situation. (petitioner’s undergraduate tuition and medical = $11,400. costs)] school