In re the Marriage of: Erica Beth Petelin, petitioner, Respondent,
Michael Alexander Petelin, Appellant.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-FA-10-3710
JoMarie Alexander, Alexander Law Office, P.A., Minnetonka, Minnesota (for respondent)
Michael Petelin, Plymouth, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Chief Judge; and Willis, Judge. [*]
JOHNSON, Chief Judge
Michael Alexander Petelin appeals from a judgment and decree that dissolved his marriage to Erica Beth Johnson (formerly known as Erica Beth Petelin). He raises several issues relating to the district court's division of marital assets, custody award, and child-support award. We affirm.
Petelin and Johnson were married in 1995. Three children were born during the marriage: V.P. in 1996, A.P. in 2001, and S.P. in 2004.
In May 2010, Johnson petitioned for dissolution. In May 2011, a referee issued an order that awarded temporary exclusive possession of the marital homestead to Petelin and required him to make temporary child-support payments of $700. The order did not award temporary spousal maintenance. Both parties continued to live in the marital homestead until July 2011.
The matter was tried for three days in May 2012. In August 2012, the district court issued its judgment and decree. The district court divided the marital assets, awarded sole legal and physical custody to Johnson, awarded Petelin parenting time with the two younger children, and ordered Petelin to pay child support in the amount of $943 per month. The district court reserved the issue of spousal maintenance.
Petelin filed a motion for amended findings in which he raised multiple issues but did not include any proposed alternative findings. The district court construed the motion as a motion for reconsideration under Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11 and denied it. Petelin appeals.
Petelin's pro se appellate brief makes numerous general complaints about Johnson, the circumstances that gave rise to the parties' separation, Johnson's attorney, the dissolution process, and other things. Petelin's pro se brief also complains about the district court, but he makes relatively few assertions that the district court erred in a particular ruling. Because this court is an error-correcting court, we are focused on identifying and analyzing an appellant's assertions of error. That is a difficult task in this case because of the lack of organizational structure in Petelin's pro ...