Opinion
A20-1523
08-10-2021
In re the Marriage of: Ali Mehralian, petitioner, Appellant, v. Rachel Marie Davies, Respondent, County of Dakota, intervenor, Respondent.
Opinion Filed Date 16 August 2021
Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-FA-15-552
Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2013, appellant Ali Mehralian and respondent Rachel Marie Davies divorced. Pursuant to a September 2014 order, Mehralian was required to pay child support. Over the next five years, the district court reduced Mehralian's monthly child support obligation to $50.
2. In November 2019, Mehralian moved to modify his child-support obligation from $50 per month to $0. He also requested that his driver's license be reinstated. In an order dated February 19, 2020, the district court denied the motion, and Mehralian appealed. By order opinion, this court affirmed. Mehralian v. Davies, No. A20-0412 (Minn.App. Feb. 23, 2021). We concluded that because the district court determined that Mehralian receives income, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce his child-support obligation. Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 2 (2020)). We also concluded that because Mehralian did not demonstrate to the district court that he entered into a written payment agreement, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request to reinstate his driver's license. Id. (citing Minn. Stat. §§ 518A.65(e)(2), .69 (2020)). We declined to address Mehralian's claims that the county conspired against him and that suspension of his driver's license subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment because Mehralian did not make these arguments before the district court. Id. (citing Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988)).
3. During the pendency of Mehralian's first appeal, Mehralian was entitled to a $1,200 Economic Impact Payment through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The county intercepted the payment and applied it to Mehralian's child support arrears. After application of the payment, Mehralian still owed over $15,000 in child support.
4. On August 5, 2020, Mehralian filed a motion requesting that the district court release the $1,200 that the county intercepted, lift the suspension of his driver's license, and impose sanctions on the county. Mehralian argued that the county has conspired against him and that the county's actions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Mehralian also argued that the $1,200 constituted a payment plan of $150 for eight months. On August 31, 2020, Mehralian filed a supplemental motion citing legal authority to support his August 5, 2020 motion.
5. On November 2, 2020, the district court denied Mehralian's motion. The district court determined that because the $1,200 was a tax refund under the CARES Act, the county had legal authority to take the stimulus payment and apply it to his outstanding child support arrears. To support its decision, the district court cited to section 2201(a) of the CARES Act (providing that the $1,200 payments constitute "a credit against the tax imposed" for the year 2020), Minnesota Statutes section 518A.61 (2020) (allowing revenue recapture under chapter 270A when "the obligor is in arrears in court-ordered child support . . . in an amount greater than the obligor's total monthly support"), and 26 U.S.C. § 6402(c) (2018) (providing that overpayment refund shall be reduced by amount of past-due child support). The district court also determined that because the $1,200 payment was not pursuant to any agreement, Mehralian was not entitled to have his driver's license reinstated. See Minn. Stat. §§ 518A.65(e)(2), .69. Last, the district court concluded that because the county followed the applicable law in seizing the $1,200, there was no reason to impose sanctions. This appeal followed.
The district court determined that it had jurisdiction over the motion because, although it related to the suspension of Mehralian's driver's license, the motion sought to reinstate his license based on different facts than the pending appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.01, subd. 2 (stating that the district court "retains jurisdiction as to matters independent of, supplemental to, or collateral to the order or judgment appealed from"); see also Perry v. Perry, 749 N.W.2d 399, 403 (Minn.App. 2008) (concluding that the district court retained jurisdiction to consider motion properly grounded on new facts that would not require reconsideration of same issues on appeal).
6. On appeal, Mehralian does not directly challenge the district court's November 2, 2020 order. Instead, he makes conclusory statements, appearing to argue that the county has conspired against him and that the suspension of his driver's license amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. In support, Mehralian has attached a two-page printout from an internet search engine that contains incomplete sentences and other clauses that appear to be portions of various judicial opinions from the United States Supreme Court and from courts in six states other than Minnesota. Mehralian does not explain how these cases relate to this appeal, to the district court's order in this case, or to any Minnesota authority. Nor does Mehralian make any explanation of what relief he is seeking. We decline to address Mehralian's arguments in the absence of adequate briefing. See State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach inadequately briefed issue); Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944) ("[O]n appeal error is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it."); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (stating that an assignment of error in a brief based on "mere assertion" and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.