Opinion
A20-0412
02-23-2021
In re the Marriage of: Ali Mehralian, petitioner, Appellant, v. Rachel Marie Davies, Respondent, County of Dakota, intervenor, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-FA-15-552 Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Cochran, Judge. BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2013, appellant Ali Mehralian and respondent Rachel Marie Davies divorced. The marital-dissolution decree granted Mehralian sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties' two minor children, who were ages ten and sixteen at the time. A subsequent order issued in April 2014 granted permanent joint legal custody to the parties and temporary sole physical custody to Davies, and a September 2014 order made the temporary custody order permanent. The September 2014 order also required Mehralian to pay $498 per month in basic child support.
2. In 2015, Mehralian moved to modify his child-support obligation. A Hennepin County district court suspended his support obligation. Following a transfer of venue in October 2015, a Dakota County district court reinstated Mehralian's basic child-support obligation in July 2017 in the amount of $528 per month. The district court rejected Mehralian's argument that he could not work due to post-traumatic stress disorder, determined that Mehralian had the ability to work as a taxi driver, as he had in the past, and imputed income to him in the amount of the median wage of a taxi driver.
3. In June 2019, Mehralian again moved to modify his child-support obligation. In an order issued in September 2019, a child-support magistrate reduced his ongoing basic support amount to $50 per month because the magistrate found that there had been a substantial change in Mehralian's circumstances that rendered the existing child-support order unfair. The magistrate also addressed Mehralian's request for an order related to the county's notice of intent to seek suspension of Mehralian's driver's license for failure to pay past-due child support. The magistrate denied that request.
4. Mehralian's driver's license was subsequently suspended. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.65(a), (b) (2020) (providing that a court or child-support enforcement authority may order the commissioner of public safety to suspend the driver's license of a person who owes child-support arrears "in an amount equal to or greater than three times" the person's monthly obligation).
5. Most recently, in November 2019, Mehralian moved to modify his child-support obligation from $50 per month to $0. He also requested that his driver's license be reinstated. In an order dated February 19, 2020, the district court denied Mehralian's motion. The court determined that Mehralian had not provided any support for his argument that his $50-per-month obligation should be reduced. Moreover, the court noted that $50 per month was, generally, the minimum support obligation imposed by Minnesota law. The court also declined to reinstate Mehralian's driver's license because, according to the county, he had not entered into a payment plan to address his past-due child-support obligation.
6. The current appeal stems from the district court's February 19, 2020 order. While this appeal was pending, Mehralian filed another motion in district court to have his driver's license reinstated. The motion was denied.
7. In his brief to this court, Mehralian does not appear to directly challenge the district court's February 19, 2020 order. Instead, Mehralian raises new arguments that were not addressed by the district court. While Mehralian's arguments are difficult to understand, he appears to first argue that the police, the City of Eagan, Dakota County, and the judiciary have engaged in a conspiracy against him. He appears to argue that this conspiracy began with his arrest in 2006, extended through 2014 when Davies received permanent physical custody of the parties' children, and continues today. It is unclear how Mehralian's conspiracy allegation relates to the child-support order currently on appeal.
8. Second, Mehralian appears to challenge the suspension of his driver's license. He appears to raise new arguments that the suspension of his driver's license violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment.
9. Generally, appellate courts will not consider matters that the parties did not argue to the district court and that the district court did not consider. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). This rule equally applies to constitutional questions. See In re Welfare of C.L.L., 310 N.W.2d 555, 557 (Minn. 1981) (declining to address a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal in a termination of parental rights case).
10. Mehralian did not make his conspiracy or constitutional arguments before the district court. Because Mehralian did not argue those claims to the district court and because the district court did not consider them, we decline to consider them on appeal. See Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582 (providing that an appellate court must generally consider only those issues that were presented to and considered by the district court).
In addition to his motion to modify child support and reinstate his driver's license, Mehralian filed a "conspiracy to convict" motion with the district court. But Mehralian failed to serve the latter motion on Dakota County. Furthermore, he did not raise any argument regarding that issue at the motion hearing, and instead chose only to address his motion to modify child support and reinstate his license. As a result, the district court did not hear or decide Mehralian's "conspiracy to convict" motion.
11. Regardless, we do not discern any abuse of discretion in the district court's order. See Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App. 2017) (providing that the decision whether to modify child support is within the broad discretion of the district court); see also Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen, 767 N.W.2d 711, 716 (Minn. App. 2009) ("A district court abuses its discretion when it makes findings unsupported by the evidence or when it improperly applies the law."), review granted (Minn. Sept. 29, 2009) and appeal dismissed (Minn. Feb. 1, 2010). First, the district court correctly applied the law in rejecting Mehralian's request to reduce his child-support obligation from $50 per month to $0 per month. Under the applicable statute, the minimum basic support obligation is $50 per month. Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 2(a)(1) (2020) (providing that "for one or two children, the obligor's basic support obligation is $50 per month"). The statute provides an exception to the minimum support obligation if "the obligor receives no income and completely lacks the ability to earn income." Id., subd. 2(b). But the district court determined from the record that Mehralian has an income. The statutory exception to the $50-per-month minimum obligation therefore does not apply to Mehralian.
12. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mehralian's request to reinstate his driver's license. An individual who has had their license suspended for nonpayment of child support may have their license reinstated by order of a district court if the individual enters into a written payment agreement. Minn. Stat. §§ 518A.65(e)(2), .69 (2020). Because Mehralian did not demonstrate to the district court that he met these requirements, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request to reinstate his driver's license.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: February 23, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Jeanne M. Cochran