Metcalf v. Metcalf

769 N.W.2d 386 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and Rita (W) were divorced in 1999. H was ordered to pay alimony of $2,000 per month for a period of 120 months. In the original dissolution decree, H's monthly gross income was determined to be $8,211 per month or $98,532 per year. Rita's income was determined to be $1,337 per month or $16,044 per year. On March 31, 2005, H filed a complaint seeking a reduction of his alimony obligation, alleging that since 1999, his income decreased and W's income increased. The trial court denied the motion. H did not appeal but two months later filed a second motion. The court limited the evidence at the second hearing, allowing only evidence of changes which occurred after December 20, 2005, the date the first hearing was held. H has worked as a chiropractic physician for 23 years and was having issues with 'arthritic changes' in his knees and hands, which limit him to a degree in his work as a chiropractor. H did not have health insurance at the time of the second modification hearing because he does not have funds to pay for insurance. H has not been able to find additional employment. Tax returns showed that H's net income from self-employment was $50,047 in 2005 and $50,293 in 2006 well below his prior numbers. H eventually filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and received a discharge. H still owes $21,000 to the Internal Revenue Service and is making payments of $250 per month to pay off that debt. H deeded his home back to the mortgage lender after foreclosure proceedings were initiated. H testified that his net income was about $3,000 per month. W's tax returns show income of $39,267 for 2003 and $64,708 for 2004. These amounts do not include the $24,000 in alimony Rita received in each of those years. H's net income in 2005 was $9,408, and in 2006, H suffered a net loss of $37,867. In the first 8 months of 2007, H's net income was $10,708. Rita cashed in her IRA in the amount of $23,800 to meet her monthly living expenses of $3,633. W owned a beauty salon. Thereafter, H owned a drycleaning business, and in 2005, she and her son opened a coffee shop. Since then, they opened another coffee shop. H and her son also acquired some investment property, which cost $195,000. W relied upon her alimony award when she purchased the investment property. The court dismissed H's second complaint to modify alimony. H was required to show a material change in circumstances since January 26, 2006. H appealed, and the court affirmed. The Court of Appeals noted that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties or their privities in any future litigation. H appealed again.