Patricia Harder, Appellant, vs. City of Proctor, Respondent, Eric Madson, Respondent, Peggy Peterson, individually and d/b/a Casino Pizza, Respondent.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

CX-97-1472

State of Minnesota, County of Clay, petitioner,

Respondent,

Joddie C. Gilbertson, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

Terry A. Graff,

Appellant.

Filed April 21, 1998

Affirmed

Short, Judge

Clay County District Court

File No. F18950446

Terry A. Graff, Esq., 1713 4th Avenue NW, #15, Dilworth, Minnesota 56529-1803 (pro se appellant)

Joddie C. Gilbertson, P.O. Box 423, 121 2nd St. SE, Hillsboro, ND 58045 (for respondent)

Todd Webb, Clay County Attorney, Beverly L. Adams, Assistant County Attorney, Clay County Courthouse, 807 - 11th Street, N., P.O. Box 280, Moorhead, Minnesota 56561-0280 (for respondent Clay County)

Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Amundson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

SHORT, Judge

Terry A. Graff and Joddie C. Gilbertson are the parents of three children. In 1990, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Graff was the father of the parties' youngest child. Subsequently, Graff's child support obligation was set at $336 per month. That obligation gave rise to numerous motions and appeals, and was modified in December 1990, May 1992, January 1996, and July 1997. Prior to the last modification, Graff filed a motion requesting financial information from Gilbertson and recalculation of his arrearages. After a hearing, the ALJ ordered Gilbertson to comply with discovery and denied Graff's request regarding recalculation of arrearages. On appeal, Graff argues the ALJ abused its discretion by failing to require the county to correct its calculation of his arrearages. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

An ALJ is afforded broad discretion in child support cases, and we must affirm an administrative decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Minn. Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 4(h) (1996) (providing decisions of ALJ are appealable in same manner as decisions of trial court); Lee v. Lee, 459 N.W.2d 365, 368-69 (Minn. App. 1990) (concluding trial court standards of review are applicable to review of ALJ's order), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1990). A trial court properly exercises its discretion by making findings supported by the evidence and law. Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Minn. 1993).

Graff argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to require the county to correct its records regarding past due child support. We disagree. Contrary to Graff's argument, the $694.75 birthing expenses were entered in February 1990 and were not part of the parties' stipulated judgment of $1,294.72, which covered arrearages between March 1, 1990 and November 1990. See Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank, 305 Minn. 415, 429 n.19, 235 N.W.2d 187, 195 n.19 (1975) (concluding both stipulation and order have collateral estoppel effect equivalent to consent judgment and preclude litigation of all issues which could have been litigated); see also Bartel v. New Haven Township, 323 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Minn. 1982) (concluding voluntary payment of judgment without reserving right to appeal constitutes waiver of appeal right). In addition, the county properly applied Graff's tax recapture funds ($294.84) to his outstanding child support obligations. See Minn. Stat. § 270 A. 07 (1996) (providing procedure for collection of debt through setoff against refunds due to individuals). Moreover, we are unable to review Graff's arguments concerning arrearages from November 1990 and April 1992 because Graff failed to provide an adequate record. See Noltimier v. Noltimier, 280 Minn. 28, 29, 157 N.W.2d 530, 531 (1968) (concluding appellant has burden to provide adequate record); see also Robinson v. Robinson, 355 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. App. 1984) (concluding it is appellant's responsibility to assure adequate record presented for review and declining to consider division of household goods because exhibits upon which appellant based his claim not in record), review denied (Minn. Jan. 4, 1985). After a careful review of the record as submitted, we conclude there is no abuse of discretion in the calculation of Graff's past due child support payments.

Affirmed.