Dakota County District Court File No. F7913241
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Minge, Judge
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Both parties appeal the district court's orders determining the amount of the lien to be paid by respondent Kathleen Middlecamp, the additional child support to be paid by appellant David Middlecamp, and other expenses to be reimbursed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
On September 4, 1992, the marriage of appellant David Middlecamp and respondent Kathleen Middlecamp was dissolved. Kathleen was awarded the parties' homestead subject to a lien in favor of David to secure payment for his one-half interest in the property when the youngest child turned 18 or finished high school, whichever occurred later.
The dissolution judgment included the following language regarding the disposition of the property:
Petitioner [Kathleen] is awarded * * * the homestead and adjacent lot * * *:
Subject to a lien in favor of respondent [David], to be determined as follows:
The net sales proceeds shall be calculated as follows:
Selling price (fair market value)
a. Reasonable expenses of sale, including real estate commissions and points, if any. If respondent [David] elects to buy out petitioner's [Kathleen's] equity interest, she will receive credit only for actual costs of financing;
c. The cost of any capital repairs or improvements made subsequent to entry of the Judgment and Decree herein, in excess of $500.00.
By May 2001, the youngest child finished high school and was 18. This triggered Kathleen's responsibility to satisfy the homestead lien in David's favor. In June 2001, Kathleen claimed David owed child-support arrearages, and other expenses, which she argued should partially offset the satisfaction of the homestead lien.
The district court determined that the party references in the buyout were typographical errors and accorded Kathleen (as the petitioner) the right to buy out David (as respondent). The parties disagreed over several other matters. The first was the size of the homestead. The parties owned a side lot, which David claimed should be separately valued. Kathleen claimed that the side lot was a part of the parcel on which the residence was situated and should not be valued separately. The district court agreed with David.
Kathleen claimed total refinancing expenses of $9,426.17. This was based on a $200,000 loan and mortgage. The district court determined that the appropriate refinancing amount should be half the loan, determined the cost of that refinancing would be $1,909, and allowed Kathleen to deduct half that amount or $954.50 from what she would owe David. David asserts ...