Marriage of Braatz

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Family Law

Family LawChild SupportCost-of-Living Adjustmentschild supportcost-of-living adjustmentCOLAMinn. Stat. § 518.641retroactivity

Facts

The parties' marriage was dissolved in September 1987, and the decree set child support at $720 per month for two children and provided for biennial adjustment under Minn. Stat. § 518.641. Respondent did not seek any adjustment until August 20, 1991, when she personally served notice seeking to raise support to $841.95 per month effective February 1, 1991. Appellant moved to dismiss, arguing the notice was untimely and statutorily defective, and he also argued that an adjustment was unwarranted because his income had risen only through merit increases that lagged behind inflation. The district court denied dismissal and increased support to $841.68 based on a 17.6% rise in the Minneapolis/St. Paul consumer price index since the 1987 decree.

Issue

Did the district court err in denying the obligor's motion to dismiss on the ground that the notice of the cost-of-living adjustment was untimely or statutorily defective? Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering a 17.6% cost-of-living increase based on inflation since the original decree?

Rule

A court generally applies the law in effect at the time of decision unless doing so would alter matured or unconditional rights, impose new and unanticipated obligations, or otherwise work an injustice. Under Minn. Stat. § 518.641 as amended in 1991, in cases where payment is not made to the public authority, a cost-of-living adjustment may be sought in any month no sooner than two years after the decree, with at least 20 days' notice before the effective date; personal service satisfies the statute's service requirement. The obligor bears the burden of showing that all or part of the adjustment should not take effect because insufficient cost-of-living or other increases in income prevent fulfillment of the adjusted obligation, and compounded increases are permitted where no prior adjustment has been made.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A 1989 dissolution decree in Duluth, Minnesota required Evan Mercer to pay child support and provided for statutory cost-of-living adjustments. In September 1993, after a statutory amendment had already taken effect, Nina Mercer served notice seeking a cost-of-living adjustment for an effective date 25 days later. Evan argues the court must apply the pre-amendment statute because Nina missed the old annual filing window earlier that year.

How should the court rule on Evan's objection?

Explanation. The majority applied the version of the statute in effect when notice was served and when the district court ruled. An obligor's expectation that no adjustment would occur under the former timing rule is not a vested right. Thus, absent matured or unconditional rights, new and unanticipated obligations, or other injustice, the court applies the law in effect at decision. (Derived from Marriage of Braatz (n.d.).)