Title: Minnesota Supreme Court finds that a father who voluntarily terminates his employment to attend college is not automatically considered to not be voluntarily unemployed. BY: Kristy B.

The link to my case is: www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/Inacademic

The case my summary is on is Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 2002 Minn. LEXIS 405 (2002)

In re: Paul Daniel Putz, n/k/a Paul Ben-Yehuda, Respondent, vs. Jamile Therese Putz, Respondent below, County of Benton, petitioner, appellant.

The issue is whether the child support magistrate and the Court of Appeals applied Minnesota Statute §518.551 correctly when they reduced the child support obligation of Paul Ben-Yehuda.

The facts of the case are:

 1. The dissolution of marriage and original child support obligation was ordered in October, 1999.

2.  In January, 2001 Ben-Yehuda filed a counter-motion to Benton County’s proposed increase in child support and other obligations. He stated at that time his income had decreased to a military benefit of $460 per month, and that he was dependent on his current wife for financial support because he was attending college.

3. He was $5,321 in arrears at that time for child support payments.

4. The child support magistrate found Ben-Yehuda had a substantial change in circumstances and ordered the 1999 order as unreasonable and unfair.

5. Mr. Ben-Yehuda had voluntarily terminated his employment with the U.S. Postal Service to attend college. His annual income prior to terminating his employment was $40,000. He stated that after attending college for 3 ½ to 4 more years his annual salary might be $70,000.  

6. The County of Benton appealed the order to the Appellate Court, which affirmed they decision of the child support magistrate.

7. The County of Benton appealed the order to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Minnesota Supreme Court found that Minn. Statute §518.551, subd. 5b (d) (1) did not limit the power of the court to consider whether a child support obligor’s unemployment or underemployment was in bad faith toward his or her support obligation; (2) the child support magistrate abused his discretion by making a clearly erroneous conclusion that was against logics and the facts on record; (3) the father was voluntarily unemployed and failed to prove that his unemployment was temporary or that it would lead to an increase in income.[1] The Court found that both the magistrate and the appeals court erred in their decision by not considering the voluntary termination of employment by the father. The courts ruled that someone who voluntarily terminates their employment to attend college is automatically considered to not be voluntarily unemployed.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the child support magistrate for reconsideration with directions that any modification of the father’s child support obligation had to be based on his imputed income and the magistrate had to consider the statutory factors before determining the final amount of the father’s support obligation. The Court found that the father deliberately decreased his income to avoid paying his child support obligation; therefore, causing his ex-wife and daughter to apply for state assistance. The father’s imputed income is his prior earnings history, education, and job skills and whether the available jobs in the community fit the parent’s qualifications.

---

[1] Taken from the Court opinion on the Lexis Nexis Academic website.