 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walswick-Boutwell6/17/2003
n of marital property division to determine child support obligation); Watson, 379 N.W.2d at 591 (directing district court on remand to reconsider child support award based on respondent's lowered income due to partial apportionment of disability income as marital property).
This approach is consistent with the statutory definitions of "marital property" and "income," which imply an overlap between these two categories. As noted in Swanson, both Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5 (marital property) and subd. 6 (2002) (income) include pension plan benefits in their respective definitions. Swanson, 583 N.W.2d at 17-18. Although the disability annuity is marital property, it is also income or a resource to be considered in setting child support . Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c)(1) (2002); Swanson, 583 N.W.2d at 18. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by treating a portion of the monthly benefit as marital property and the remaining portion as income for purposes of child support.
2. Child-care Expense Contribution
Appellant argues that the district court erred in calculating his contribution toward child-care expenses. A party's contribution to child-care expenses is based on the proportion of the party's net income to the total income of the parties. Minn. Stat. §á518.551, subd. 5(b) (2002). "Net income" is defined as total monthly income less federal and state taxes, social security , and reasonable pension deductions and, among other possible deductions, child support and "Cost of Dependent Health Insurance Coverage." Id.
In the amended judgment, the district court subtracted appellant's child support obligation of $517 and the marital property payment of $400, but failed to subtract appellant's monthly payment of $217 for dependent health care. We conclude that the district court erred in failing to deduct the cost of dependent health care when calculating appellant's child-care contribution.
DECISION
The district court did not err in awarding a portion of appellant's disability annuity to respondent as marital property, while determining child support based on the remaining portion of the annuity. Because the district court erred in its calculation of appellant's child-care contribution by failing to deduct the cost of dependent health care, we reverse and remand this issue to the district court.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
|