Marriage of Pogreba v. Pogreba
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1987, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACTS
The parties were divorced in 1980. The mother, appellant, received custody of the parties’ two and one-half year old child. Respondent was ordered to pay $150 monthly for child support. He earned between $250 and $300 per week. Appellant earned about $150 per week.
In October 1984, appellant moved for increased child support. The court found respondent’s income had increased between $116 and $166 per week. The court also found the mother’s income had increased $266 per week. The mother claimed the father’s increased income and the increased costs due to the child’s greater age justified an increase in child support.
Respondent moved for a change in custody; he asked for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Respondent claimed the mother’s work schedule and living arrangements endangered the child’s welfare.
The trial court denied both motions. As to child support, the court found there were no substantial changes since the dissolution that made the original award unfair. Specifically, the trial court found that respondent only had a 22% salary increase after adjustments for cost of living increases, that the mother’s income had a greater relative increase than the father’s income, and that increasing expenses due to the child’s maturing were foreseeable at the time of dissolution. The trial court denied the father’s motion for hearing, holding the father failed to make the required prima facie showing.
Both parties appeal the respective denials.
DECISION
The trial court’s findings of fact cannot be set aside unless they are clearly *679 erroneous. Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01. However, we may independently review the evidence where, as here, the trial court decided an issue of fact solely on documentary evidence. Northern States Power Co. v. Williams, 343 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Minn. 1984).
Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (1984) allows modification of a child support order upon a showing of substantially changed financial circumstances that make the original award unreasonable and unfair. The affidavits and related documents show that the trial court’s findings and conclusions were accurate and complete. It was not clearly erroneous in these circumstances to find that the original support award had not become unreasonable and unfair. Thus, the trial court properly denied the motion for increased child support.
The trial court need not grant a hearing on respondent’s custody claim unless he presents affidavits making a prima facie case on the issue. Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d 471, 472 (Minn. 1981); Minn.Stat. § 518.185 (1984). We agree that the facts related in the father’s affidavits do not make a prima facie case to support his claim that the child is in danger. See Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.