Opinion
No. C3-98-1243.
Filed January 12, 1999.
Appeal from the District Court, Washington County, File No. F2931792.
Douglas Johnson, Washington County Attorney, Patrick C. Courtney, Assistant County Attorney, and Ralph W. Heuschele, (for respondent).
Timothy D. Lees, Lawrence D. Olson Associates, P.A., (for appellant).
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Randall, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
After Daniel William Massman experienced a decrease of income due to a career change, he requested a reduction in his child support obligation. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted his request, but ordered an automatic reinstatement of his prior obligation in 12 months. On appeal, Massman argues the ALJ abused its discretion in: (1) providing an automatic future increase based on imputed income; and (2) failing to deduct health care and hospitalization insurance premiums from his net monthly income or correcting a typographical error when calculating his future support obligation. We reverse and remand.
DECISION
Subject to certain limitations, an ALJ has the same power as a trial court in modifying child support obligations. Minn. Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 1(e) (1998). An ALJ is afforded broad discretion in child support cases, and we must affirm an administrative decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See id. , subd. 4(j) (1998) (providing decisions of ALJ are appealable in same manner as decisions of trial court); Lee v. Lee , 459 N.W.2d 365, 368-69 (Minn.App. 1990) (applying trial court standard of review to ALJ's order), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1990); Reck v. Reck , 346 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn.App. 1984) (citing Peterson v. Peterson , 304 Minn. 578, 580, 231 N.W.2d 85, 86 (1975), and noting trial courts are afforded broad discretion in child support cases), review denied (Minn. Apr. 25, 1984).
I.
Massman argues the ALJ abused its discretion by ordering an automatic increase of his child support obligation in 12 months. We agree. The ALJ did not find Massman was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed or reported negligible income. See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (1998) (allowing income to be imputed if obligor is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed); Roatch v. Puera , 534 N.W.2d 560, 565 (Minn.App. 1995) (holding child support may be based on earning capacity if self-employed person reports negligible income). In addition, the ALJ's decision appears to ignore emancipation of Massman's children. See Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 4a(b) (1998) (stating support obligations that do not designate specific amounts per child continue until last child is emancipated unless otherwise ordered by court); Erickson v. Erickson , 409 N.W.2d 898, 901 (Minn.App. 1987) (holding child support order that fails to prorate obligation as each child becomes emancipated deviates from child support guidelines and increases future obligations based on speculative findings). Given these facts and the absence of explanatory findings, we conclude the ALJ abused its discretion in ordering an automatic increase of Massman's child support obligation within 12 months.
II.
Massman also argues the ALJ abused its discretion in calculating his current child support obligation by failing to: (1) deduct health care and hospitalization insurance premiums in establishing current net income; and (2) correct a typographical error that increased his monthly child support obligation by $29. See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) (1998) (defining obligor's net income as total monthly income minus deductions, including cost of dependent health insurance coverage, cost of individual or group health/hospitalization coverage, or amount for actual medical expenses). Despite Massman's request for amended findings, the ALJ declined to address these issues. See Useman v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. , 198 Minn. 79, 85, 268 N.W. 866, 869 (1936) (holding typographical error, without prejudice, was harmless and did not require reversal). After a review of the record, we conclude the combination of these errors is not harmless, and remand to the ALJ for recalculation and proceedings consistent with this opinion. See, e.g., Bartl v. Bartl , 497 N.W.2d 295, 299 (Minn.App. 1993) (remanding for correction of errors in calculating obligor's net income that were not harmless).