Minnesota custody/child support issue

[Dibella]

Hi!  I generally only read the posts here, but am in dire straights of some information and our worthless attorney can't seem to give us an answer.

In 2002, DH won sole legal and physical custody of his two boys.  Previously, there was a school year/summer split, with DH having them during the school year and BM during the summer.  He was awarded full legal and physical custody and child support.  

BM only works PT, claims FT is "too much to handle".  She was ordered to pay full guideline child support.  She appealed.  The appeals court remanded it back to the district court for more information.  Apparently, the judge didn't put in enough information.  

The district court judge redid his order.  Essentially, the same order only reducing her child support based on PT income and giving her a CREDIT to the tune of $4000 that DH is responsible for.  <>

She appealed again.  This time, the appeals court found that the district court abused its discretion (MN Appeals Court #A06-91) in modifying the custody arrangment and therefore abused its discretion in applying child support.  If you read the order (see above case), it's vague.  

They upheld the district court judges ruling on the parenting schedule, but reversed the custody:

1)  I'm not sure if this means she gets her summer custody back or if the parenting schedule is in effect.. ????

Also, and most importantly,

2)  because the custody and child support was reversed, is she entitled to reimbursement of the child support she paid?  

Because if that's the case, that is ridiculous!  How can they expect DH to pay her back all that money AND support two boys full time.  Retorical question.

I can't find any case law regarding that.  

3)  Do you know where I might find case law for this?

I would think that reimbursement would be just as silly as saying, "Oh, the custody was reversed; therefore, you get all that time back that you haven't received in the last three years".  

Our attorney won't return our calls on this question and no one else I talk to seems to know the answer.

HELP!!  ;(

[socrateaser]

>They upheld the district court judges ruling on his parently
>schedule, but reversed the custody:
>
>1)  I'm not sure if this means she gets her summer custody
>back or if the parenting schedule is in effect.. ????

Support is based on the amount of overnights the child has with a particular parent. If the parenting plan was upheld, then it controls, and support should be based upon that plan. However, I can't tell if it is to be based on FT or PT work, because apparently it's still entirely up in the air, unless the appellate court told the trial judge how to calculate support in the appellate ruling.
>
>2)  because the custody and child support was reversed, is she
>entitled to reimbursement of the child support she paid?  

Depends, reversing the support award, puts the matter back on the trial judge, unless the appellate court has instructed on how to calculate. However, if the trial judge orders an amount of support less than that which was paid, then reimbursement is required, because the amount paid was ordered in error.

>3)  Do you  know where I might find case law for this?

//www.versuslaw.com $13.95 for one month.

If someone pays you for a Picasso, even though you believe it to be genuine, and later they discover that it's a reproduction, then you were enriched based upon e mutual mistake of fact, and the buyer is entitled to restitution of their money.

Same thing here. You were paid for support that was apparently mistakenly ordered, and the obligor is entitled to restitution of her payment, to the exent that you were wrongfully paid.

>
>I would think that reimbursement would be just as silly as
>saying, "Oh, the custody was reversed; therefore, you get all
>that time back that you haven't received in the last three
>years".  

The custodial parent is entiled to support in the amount provided for under guidelines for the time that custody was actually exercised, and based on the income attributable to the noncustodial parent.

The open question is whether reimbursement should be based upon FT or PT income, and I can't answer, because I haven't read the appellate court decision.

>Our attorney won't return our calls on this question and no
>one else I talk to seems to know the answer.

No one can answer unless they read the appellate decision.

PS. in the future, you must follow Mandatory Forum Guideline, rev. 1.5, Section #10, or I won't respond.