FLCS No. 111: Week Ending October 9, 2009

After releasing no family law opinions last week, the Court of Appeals issued two unpublished decisions this week, including decisions affirming maintenance and property division awards (Fischer v. Fischer), and affirming a grandparent's visitaiton rights (Ahler v. Pasbrig). .

Supreme Court Opinions (0)

The Minnesota Supreme Court did not release any opinions this week related to family law matters.

Court of Appeals Opinions (2 Unpublished)

• Ahler v. Pasbrig (Unpublished) Appellant-mother contested the district court’s order granting respondent-paternal grandmother’s petition for visitation rights. The appellate court affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion. (Hennepin County, Judge Timothy J. Mulrooney)
  
  Appellant and her child lived with respondent, essentially rent-free, for at least nineteen months while appellant was in school. After appellant completed her education, she and her child moved out. The child continued to have visitation with respondent on a regular basis for awhile, but appellant later discontinued visitation out of concern that the child’s cousin had inappropriate sexual contact with the child during a visit at respondent’s house. Respondent petitioned the court for visitation rights, and the appellate court ruled that appellant should get twenty-four hours of visitation every other weekend.
  
  On appeal, appellant first argued that respondent lacked standing to sue for visitation rights. The appellate court disagreed, finding that respondent had standing because the child had lived with respondent—not in a landlord-tenant relationship—for more than twelve months. Appellant next argued that the district court erred by finding that respondent’s visitation would not interfere with the parent-child relationship. The appellate court again disagreed, explaining that the visitation was minimal, respondent was cooperative, and visitation was in the child’s best interests.

  Full Opinion

• Fischer v. Fischer (Unpublished) Appellant-husband disputed the district court’s property division, maintenance award to respondent-wife, and child support obligation. The appellate court slightly modified the district court’s child support calculation but otherwise affirmed. (Hennepin County, Judge Patricia Kerr Karasov and Ronald L. Abrams )
  
  Upon dissolution of the parties’ marriage, the district court ordered appellant to pay respondent permanent maintenance and child support. The court’s property division did not include allocation of certain stock owned by appellant because appellant failed to disclose the stock. After dissolution, appellant was fired and decided to start his own business. He moved to modify his financial obligations to respondent, and the district court ordered him to continue paying maintenance and to secure it with life insurance, ordered him to pay child support arrears, and awarded respondent with the majority of the stock that appellant previously concealed.
  
  On appeal, appellant first argued that the district court erred in calculating his maintenance obligation. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that the district court implicitly found that appellant voluntarily reduced his income because he could have earned more by not starting his own business. Appellant next challenged the district court’s maintenance calculation. The appellate court largely affirmed, but found that the district court’s calculation of the arrearages owed was slightly off because it failed to take into account child support payments that appellant had previously made. The appellate court therefore modified that amount of arrearages appellant owed. Finally, appellant challenged the district court’s decision to award respondent with the majority of appellant’s stock. The appellate court again affirmed, finding that it was within the district court’s discretion to award respondent with more of the stock due to appellant’s fraudulent concealment of the stock during prior proceedings.

  Full Opinion