Gagnon v. Gagnon: Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion filed March 2, 2026

This opinion is nonpre cedential except as pro vided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 1 36.01, subd. 1(c). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APP EALS A25-0123 In the Marriage of: Rebecca Wood Gagno n, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Paul John Gagnon, Respondent Filed March 2, 2026 Reversed and remanded Larson, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27 - FA - 16 -4507 Michelle K. Kuhl, Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen A bdo, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Susan Dickel Minsberg, St. Paul, Minnesota (f or appellant) Ben M. Henschel, Susan A. Daudeli n, Henschel Mo berg, P.A., Min neapolis, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decide d by Bond, Presidin g Judge; Frisch, C hief Judge; and La rson, Judge. NONPRECEDENTI AL OPINION LARSON, Judge Appellant- wife Rebec c a Wood Gagnon chall enges a district court order modifying spousal maintenance f ollowing a m otion for amended findings. Wif e argues, in part, that

2 the district court abused its discretion whe n it considered new evid ence submitted with husband’s motion for amended findi ngs. Because we agree that the district court abused its discretion when it c onsidered this evidence, we reverse and reman d. FACTS By stipulated decree, the district co urt dissolved wife’s and respondent -husba nd Paul John Gagnon ’s marriage in 2017. At the time of the decree, husband ear ned an average gross monthly salary of $20,0 02. W ife earned an average gr oss monthly salary of $2,998. Under the decr ee, husband was requir ed to pay wife $5,500 in permanent monthly spousal maintenanc e. 1 In December 2023, husband moved to modif y his spousal - maintenance obligation. At that time, husband was paying $6,166.35 in permanent mo nthly spousal maintenance, accounting for cost -of- living adjust ments (COLA). 2 In his motion, hu sband alleged he had a substantial change in his gross income mak ing the existing spousa l - maintenance order unreasonable and unfai r; namely, husband ha d been laid off. Ac cording to husband, his prior employer gave hi m two weeks to access internal job postings, but he did not find a suitable position. His prior employer then categorized him as a “retiree” so that he could 1 In 2024, the legislat ure amended the mai ntenance statutes and replaced the term “ permanent maintenance” with “indefini te maintenance. ” 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 101, art. 2, § 1 (now codified at Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 3 (2024)). An award of permanent maintenance issue d before August 1, 2024, is deemed “ indefi nite maintenance.” Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 3 (2024). The parties briefed this appeal using the pre -amendme nt terminology. Therefor e, we use that terminol ogy in this opinion. 2 Husban d ’s motion to modify also included a request to deny wife’s request for a COLA and suspend all future COLAs.

3 claim his fully vested p ension. 3 Then h usband, at age 58, d ecided to beco me self -e mployed and start ed a handyma n business. Wife contested husband’s motion on se veral grounds. Wife alleged that husband’ s decision to “essentially retire at age 58” constit uted bad faith or unjustifiable self -limitation of income. 4 Wife also asserted in her affidavit that husband failed to prove his gross income had been subs tantially reduced because he failed to include evidence of “ the investment income he receives on his re tirement and investment assets which excee d $2,000,000.” 5 In a June 17, 2024 order, the district court denied husband’s moti on to modify spousal maintenance. The district court a cknowledge d that “on its face, [husband’s] motion ha [d] merit. ” But the district court ultimately determined that husband failed to meet his burden t o show the exis ting permanent spousal - maintenance a mount was unreasonable and unfai r, in part, because husband failed to disclose his invest ment assets. The district court noted husband’s omission w as “[a]t best, a significant oversigh t” and at worst, “a significant la ck of candor towards th e [c]ourt.” 3 Under the stip ulated decree, husb and’s pension was deemed marital property, except for 75-months of pre- marital credit. 4 We note that, when granting the mo tion for amended findings, the district court acknowledged that w ife had raised this claim but did not analyze whether wife m et the standard to show a “colorable claim of bad faith” under In re Marri age of Richards, 472 N.W.2d 162, 165 (Min n. App. 1991). 5 At the heari ng on the motion, when confronted with wife’s affidavit, husband’s att orney stated that husband “has approximately $2 million” in investment assets. Attorney statements are not evidence. See Derksen v. Comm ’ r of Pub. Safety, 11 N.W.3d 340, 345 (Minn. App. 2024).

4 Husband filed a timely motion for amended fin dings under Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.02. 6 In his motion, h usband proposed amend ed findings related to hi s income. As relevant here, relying on wife’s general assertion in her affidavit that husband’s investment as sets “ exceed [ed] $2,000, 000,” husban d offered more specific calculations of his income and argued he met his burde n to show the existing permanent spousal - maintenance amount wa s unreasonable and unfair. Husband also atta ched three new exhibits to his motion for amended findings. The district court granted husba nd’s motio n for amended findings, adoptin g husband’s characteri zation of the record t hat he has $2,000,000 in investment assets, 7 and specifically relying on the exhibits h usband attached to his motion fo r amended findings. Relying on these amended findings and the new exhibits, the district court conc luded husband met his burden to show the ex isting permanent spousal- mai ntenance award was unreasonable and unfair, and reduced husband’s monthly perma nent spousal-mai ntenance obligation to $3,260. Wife appeals. DECISION Wife raises several challenges to the district court’s decision to grant husband’s motion to modify spou sal maintenance following the mot ion for amended findings. As 6 Husband did not seek t o reopen the record. 7 We note that the only evidence in the reco rd is that husband’s invest ment assets “ exceed $2,000,000.” (Emphasi s added.) Thus, using $2,000,000 to calculat e husband’s income understates husba nd’s income based on the current record.

5 relevant to our decisi on, wife asserts that the district court abused i ts discretion when i t considered the new exh ibits submitted with hu sband’s motion for am ended findings. We review a district court’s decision to am end its findings under an abuse -of- discretion standard. Zander v. Zander, 720 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Mi nn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 14, 2006). A district court abuses its discreti on “ if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by th e record, misapplies th e law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrar y to logic and the facts on record.” Madden v. Madden, 923 N.W.2d 688, 696 (Minn. App. 2019). Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.02, a party may move the district court to amend its findings or make addi tional findings and a mend the order accor dingly. To move for amend ed findings, a movant must “both identify th e alleged def ect in the challenge d findings and explain why the challenge d findings are defective.” Le wi s v. Lewis, 572 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Minn. App. 1997), rev. deni ed (Minn. Fe b. 19, 1998). When considerin g a motion for amended findings, a district court “must apply the evi dence as submitte d ” and “may neithe r go ou tside the record, nor con sider new evidence.” Rathbun v. W.T. Grant Co., 219 N.W.2d 641, 651 (Minn. 1974). Wife asserts that, in the amended order, the district court expre ssly relied on the exhibits husband su bmitted for the first time with his motion f or amended findings. Specifically, wife poi nts to the district court’s s tatement that “ [b] as ed on the foreg oing and the tax calculations s ubmitted by [hus band], [wife] is able to meet he r reasonable monthly expenses with spo usal maintenance of $3,260.” (E mphasis a dded.) Wife is correct; the new exhibits — which contain husband’ s calculations of the parties’ respective net

6 incomes— were not in the record and were only introduced as part of husband’s motion for amended findings. Accordingly, we conc lude the district court abuse d its discretion when it considered the exhibi ts. We further conclude that considering this evid ence prejudiced wife. See Uselma n v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 138 (Minn. 1 990) (stating an evidentia ry error must be both an abuse of discretio n and prejudicial t o warra nt reversal); see also G eorge v. Est. of Ba ker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn. 2006) (stating an evid entiary error is not prejudicial unless it might reasonably have influe nced the trier of fa ct and changed the result of the trial). First, wife was prejudiced by the late submiss ion because she did not ha ve an opportunity to rebut the exhibits or submit evidence to the contrary. 8 Second, husband bore the burden of proof to establish that he was entitled to mod ification. See Minn. Stat. § 518. 552, subd. 5b(b) (2024); s ee also Nardini v. Nardini, 414 N.W.2d 18 4, 198 (Minn. 1987). Prior to the submission of the new exhibits, the district co urt had determined that husband had not met his burden. Thus, w e discern that the inclusi on of those exhibits “ might reasonably have influenced” the district court to change the res ult. See George, 724 N.W.2d at 9. For these reasons, we reverse the distri ct court’s amende d order and r emand for the district court to reconsider husband’s motio n for amended findings without the new exhibits. We do not re ach the other issues wif e raises on appeal. Reversed and remanded. 8 Husband disagrees, ar guing that wife could likewise have chosen not to comply with rule 52.02 and submitt ed her own rebuttal evi dence. We are not per suaded that wife fails to show prejudice because she comp lied with rule 52.02 and based h er submissions on the evidence properly in th e record.