http://www.mncourts.gov/CourtOfAppeals/RecentOpinions.aspx

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court%20of%20Appeals/Standard%20opinions/OPa181721-061719.pdf

MOTHERS LOVE CANNOT BE IMPUGNED BY CORRUPT COURTS

Horrors of MN Courts Using Unpublished Opinions Published on Web

17pgs of GobbleGook
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A18-1721
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, vs. David Victor Rucki, Respondent, County of Dakota, intervenor, Respondent. Filed June 17, 2019 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M., Judge Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-FA-11-1273

Filed June 17, 2019 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M., Judge Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-FA-11-1273 Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Dunedin, Florida (pro se appellant) Lisa M. Elliott, Elliott Law Offices, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent David Victor Rucki) James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, James W. Donehower, Assistant County Attorney, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Dakota County) Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.  Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge In this child-support dispute between appellant Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki and respondents David Victor Rucki and Dakota County, appellant challenges (1) a childsupport magistrate’s (CSM) modification of Grazzini-Rucki’s child-support obligation and (2) the CSM’s imposition of a payment agreement as a condition of reinstating GrazziniRucki’s driver’s license, which had been suspended for failure to pay child support. Because her arguments are time-barred or fail to demonstrate a reversible error, we affirm. FACTS As described below, Grazzini-Rucki challenges three orders, filed in May, July, and August 2018. We begin, however, with an October 2016 order, which sets the stage for the later, challenged orders. On October 13, 2016, Grazzini-Rucki was ordered to pay Rucki $975 per month for child support. At that time, Grazzini-Rucki had been convicted of, and was awaiting sentencing for, deprivation of parental rights. Therefore, the order provided that Grazzini-Rucki’s support obligation would be suspended until she was released from incarceration, whereupon a review hearing would be held to decide whether the supp

David Rucki ineligible for public assistance, Grazzini-Rucki has not shown that imputation of that income would have the same effect. “[O]n appeal, error is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944).
Inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court. Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982). The relationship, if any, between eligibility for public assistance and the imputation of income for purposes of IV-D jurisdiction is not adequately briefed, and Grazzini-Rucki has not shown that the CSM lacked jurisdiction over the case due to an imputation of income to Rucki. E. Credits and arrearages
Lastly, Grazzini-Rucki argues that the CSM failed to consider some child-support credits and arrearages purportedly owed to her. Grazzini-Rucki asserts that, because the August order reduced her monthly obligation from $975 to $215, she is “owed a credit of $760 per month.” But, at the time of the August order, it was Grazzini-Rucki’s future obligation that was being reduced to $215.
The reduction itself did not result in an overpayment, and Grazzini-Rucki does not cite any other evidence of overpayment. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 518A.52 (2018) (providing that overpayments of a child-support obligation can be credited against past and future support obligations). The credits that Grazzini-Rucki is claiming do not seem to exist. Also, according to Grazzini-Rucki, arrearages “owed to [her] from the time prior to September 7, 2012,” were suddenly deemed paid in full, “without [her] receiving a dime of that money.” Specifically, she argues that Rucki currently owes $62,822.52 in arrearages to her. Her calculation is based on imposing 17 Rucki’s support obligation of $13,673 per month for the months of May to September 2011. But, in an order dated September 21, 2011, that support award was subsequently vacated due to mistake, discovery of new evidence, and fraud by Grazzini-Rucki. When the $13,673 support payments are removed from the equation, Rucki does not owe any arrearages to Grazzini-Rucki even according to her own calculation. Affirmed.

About 43,000 results (0.50 seconds)