§ 518.57

Marriage of Bender v. Bender · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Luthen v. Luthen · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Guyer v. Guyer · 1999 2 citations

Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in determining the date of commencement of the child support modification that reflects the change in physical care of L.G. Appellant claims a basis in Minn. Stat. § 518.57, subd. 3 (1998), for his assertion that his support obligation should have been modified retroactively to the date that L.G. was integrated into his home. Id. (providing that the court may consider a support obligation satisfied by direct provision of care for a child “integrated into the family of the obli-gor with the consent of the obligee”). But L.G. could only be said to be integrated into appellant’s home with respondent’s consent after the December 10, 1997, stipulation of the parties. Because retroactive modification is within the discretion of the trial court, we conclude that the minor differences between a December and a February commencement of the date of modification do not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. See Finch v. Marusich, 457 N.W.2d 767, 770 (Minn.App.1990) (the use of “may” in Minnesota statutes is permissive, see Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15 (1998), and the trial court has broad discretion to set the effective date of support modification); Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(d) (1998) (permissive “may” on modification); Minn. Stat. § 518.57, subd. 3 (permissive “may” on satisfaction by direct provision of care).

Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in determining the date of commencement of the child support modification that reflects the change in physical care of L.G. Appellant claims a basis in Minn. Stat. § 518.57, subd. 3 (1998), for his assertion that his support obligation should have been modified retroactively to the date that L.G. was integrated into his home. Id. (providing that the court may consider a support obligation satisfied by direct provision of care for a child “integrated into the family of the obli-gor with the consent of the obligee”). But L.G. could only be said to be integrated into appellant’s home with respondent’s consent after the December 10, 1997, stipulation of the parties. Because retroactive modification is within the discretion of the trial court, we conclude that the minor differences between a December and a February commencement of the date of modification do not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. See Finch v. Marusich, 457 N.W.2d 767, 770 (Minn.App.1990) (the use of “may” in Minnesota statutes is permissive, see Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15 (1998), and the trial court has broad discretion to set the effective date of support modification); Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(d) (1998) (permissive “may” on modification); Minn. Stat. § 518.57, subd. 3 (permissive “may” on satisfaction by direct provision of care).

Ver Kuilen v. Ver Kuilen · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

County of Washington v. Johnson · 1997 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Kuronen v. Kuronen · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Host v. Host · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Anderson v. Anderson · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Quaid v. Quaid · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Beede v. Law · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Ulrich v. Ulrich · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Marriage of Sullivan v. Sullivan · 1986 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Marriage of Bateman v. Bateman · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Cavegn v. Cavegn · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Gabrielson v. Gabrielson · 1985 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Marriage of Mentzos v. Mentzos · 1984 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Marriage of Halper v. Halper · 1984 1 citation

Under Minn. Stat. § 518.57 (1982), the right to child support does not accrue until the court issues the dissolution decree. In relevant part, the statute reads: