Modifying Minnesota Child Support: The Money Starts Running the Day You Serve, and the Equitable Escape Hatch Was Repealed in 2007

The most expensive mistake in a Minnesota child support modification is not a bad argument about income. It is a calendar. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(f) allows a court to reach backward only to the date the motion was served — and unlike the version of the statute the Minnesota Supreme Court construed in Gully v. Gully, the current text contains no exception for the parent who was lied to, no exception for the parent who was too disabled to file, and no exception for the parent whose order was entered by default on no evidence at all. Those four exceptions existed. The legislature struck them in 2005 and they went out of the statute on January 1, 2007.

The practical consequence: a parent who spends eight months trying to work it out informally has not preserved anything. Every month of that negotiation is a month at the old number, permanently.

The second thing worth knowing before you open the statute is that § 518A.39 is narrower than it used to be. Until 2024 it was the modification statute for both child support and spousal maintenance. It is now a child-support-only statute. A motion to modify maintenance that cites § 518A.39, subd. 2 is citing a provision that no longer reaches the relief requested.

How far back can a Minnesota child support modification reach?

To the date of service, and — absent an agreement — no further. The statute:

(f) A modification of support, including interest that accrued pursuant to section 548.091, may be made retroactive only with respect to any period during which the petitioning party has pending a motion for modification but only from the date of service of notice of the motion on the responding party and on the public authority if public assistance is being furnished or the county attorney is the attorney of record, unless the court adopts an alternative effective date under paragraph (l).

Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(f).

Paragraph (l) is the only door out, and it is a narrow one: “The court may select an alternative effective date for a support order if the parties enter into a binding agreement for an alternative effective date.” § 518A.39, subd. 2(l). That is not judicial discretion. It is a stipulation provision. If the other parent will not agree, there is no alternative effective date.

Two operational points follow. First, service — not filing, not the hearing date — is what stops the clock. Under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 303.03(a)(1), a family court motion must be served and filed at least 21 days before the hearing; under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 372.01, subd. 1, a modification motion in the expedited child support process must likewise be served “at least 21 days before any scheduled hearing.” In both tracks, service is the earlier and more important act. Second, because a hearing date can be weeks or months out, the interval between service and decision is protected — but only the interval that starts with service.

What happened to the Gully exceptions?

They were repealed. This matters because Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1999), is the Minnesota Supreme Court’s leading decision on retroactive child support, and it is still occasionally cited for a rule that no longer exists.

Gully affirmed a $23,335.28 retroactive support award covering 1993 through 1996 — years before the motion was served — because the obligor had violated a 1991 order requiring him to send paystubs and tax returns to the county. The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the obligor “materially misrepresented his financial situation and that Fjerstad was precluded from bringing a motion for modification at an earlier time.” Gully, 599 N.W.2d at 825. The court decided the case under Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(d)(1) (1998), which it read to make “retroactive modification … appropriate only when ‘the party seeking modification was precluded from serving a motion’ at an earlier time,” Gully, 599 N.W.2d at 823, and to require “that the party seeking modification, when no longer precluded, promptly serve[d] a motion,” id. at 824. As the provision read in the last edition before its repeal, retroactivity could reach “an earlier period if the court makes express findings” of one of four things:

• the moving party was precluded from serving a motion by significant physical or mental disability, a material misrepresentation of another party, or fraud upon the court, and promptly moved once no longer precluded;
• the moving party received SSI, OASDI, other disability benefits, or need-based public assistance during the retroactive period;
• the order was entered by default, the party shows good cause for not appearing, and the record contains no evidence (or clearly erroneous evidence) of the obligor’s ability to pay; or
• the moving party was institutionalized or incarcerated for an offense other than nonsupport and lacked the ability to pay.

Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(d)(1)–(4) (2005 ed.). The 2005 child support overhaul struck that entire passage — the session law shows the “However, modification may be applied to an earlier period” sentence and all four clauses lined out. 2005 Minn. Laws ch. 164, § 10. Section 32 of the same act provided that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided, this act is effective January 1, 2007, and applies to orders adopted or modified after that date.”

Nothing replaced them. Compare the current § 518A.39, subd. 2(f) quoted above: the sentence ends at “attorney of record,” and the only qualifier is the stipulated alternative effective date. A Minnesota parent who discovers today that the other parent concealed a doubled income for four years has the same remedy a parent with no grievance at all has — a motion, served now, effective now. (Concealment may still matter to a motion to reopen the underlying judgment under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2, which § 518A.39, subd. 2(g) expressly preserves for property divisions. That is a different motion with a different standard.)

What counts as a substantial change in circumstances?

Section 518A.39, subd. 2(a) lists eight triggers, “any of which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair”:

1. substantially increased or decreased gross income of an obligor or obligee;
2. substantially increased or decreased need of an obligor, obligee, or the children;
3. receipt of assistance under the former AFDC program or chapter 142G or 256K;
4. a change in the cost of living for either party as measured by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics;
5. extraordinary medical expenses of the child not provided for under § 518A.41;
6. a change in the availability of appropriate health care coverage, or a substantial increase or decrease in coverage costs;
7. the addition of work-related or education-related child care expenses, or a substantial increase or decrease in existing ones; or
8. emancipation of the child, as provided in subdivision 5.

The phrase that does the work is the last one in the introductory clause: any of which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair. A trigger is necessary but not sufficient, and a district court that finds only the trigger has not made the finding the statute requires. That is the holding of Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1986), where the supreme court reversed because the modification order “states only that Gerald experienced a substantial increase in income, one of the factors required under Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2. However, there is no mention in that order that this increase in income renders the original child support order unreasonable and unfair, as required under the modification statute.” Moylan, 384 N.W.2d at 864. Moylan also held, on the same page, that “child support guidelines must also be considered by the courts in all child support modification proceedings” — a proposition the legislature has since written directly into § 518A.39, subd. 2(e)(1) (“shall apply section 518A.35”).

The 20 percent / $75 presumption, precisely

Most modification motions are built on subdivision 2(b)(1). Its exact terms matter more than the shorthand:

(b) It is presumed that there has been a substantial change in circumstances under paragraph (a) and the terms of a current support order shall be rebuttably presumed to be unreasonable and unfair if:

(1) the application of the child support guidelines in section 518A.35, to the current circumstances of the parties results in a calculated court order that is at least 20 percent and at least $75 per month higher or lower than the current support order or, if the current support order is less than $75, it results in a calculated court order that is at least 20 percent per month higher or lower;

Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(b)(1).

Three things people get wrong about it.

It is conjunctive. The recalculated guideline figure must be off by at least 20 percent and at least $75 per month. A $300 order that should be $360 clears 20 percent but not $75. A $4,000 order that should be $3,900 clears $75 but not 20 percent. Neither is presumptively modifiable — which does not mean it cannot be modified, only that the movant must prove unreasonableness and unfairness the ordinary way under paragraph (a).

There is a small-order carve-out. If the current order is under $75 per month, the $75 leg drops away and 20 percent alone is enough. That matters more than it sounds: the guideline table in § 518A.35, subd. 2 opens with two-figure monthly obligations at its lowest income bands, so a meaningful share of orders sit below the $75 line.

It is rebuttable. The presumption shifts the burden; it does not decide the motion. The responding party can meet it — most commonly by showing the guideline calculation itself rests on a wrong input, such as an overnight count or an income figure.

Running the presumption requires actually recalculating under § 518A.35. That section’s guideline is a two-dimensional table: rows are combined monthly parental income for determining child support (PICS) in $100 bands, columns are one through six children, and the highest row is “$20,000 and over.” Do not work from a table reproduced anywhere but the statute. Above the top bracket, subdivision 3(a) caps basic support at the $20,000 figure unless the court finds under subdivision 3(b) that a child has a disability or other substantial, demonstrated need. We walk through the six-step computation and the parenting-time adjustment in Minnesota child support is a formula.

The five presumptions almost nobody pleads

Subdivision 2(b) has six clauses, and five of them are not about the 20 percent number at all. In order, the remaining triggers of the same rebuttable presumption are:

• (2) the medical support provisions established under § 518A.41 “are not enforceable by the public authority or the obligee”;
• (3) health coverage ordered under § 518A.41 “is not available to the child” from the parent ordered to provide it;
• (4) the existing obligation “is in the form of a statement of percentage and not a specific dollar amount”;
• (5) the gross income of an obligor or obligee “has decreased by at least 20 percent through no fault or choice of the party”; and
• (6) a deviation was granted based on the foreign-residence factor in § 518A.43, subd. 1, clause (4), and the child no longer resides in a foreign country or the factor is otherwise no longer applicable.

Clause (4) is the one to know if you are still living under an old percentage-of-income decree: the form of the order is itself the trigger. Nothing about the parties has to have changed for the presumption to attach — though, like every clause in subdivision 2(b), it remains rebuttable. Clause (5) is the involuntary-job-loss provision, and it is easier to satisfy than clause (1) in a case where income dropped but the resulting guideline change is under $75 — but it carries its own defense, discussed next.

Does quitting a job lower child support?

No, and the statute is blunt about it. Clause (b)(5) presumes a substantial change only where income fell “through no fault or choice of the party.” Independently, Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1 provides that if a parent “is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full-time basis, or there is no direct evidence of any income, child support must be calculated based on a determination of potential income,” and that “it is rebuttably presumed that a parent can be gainfully employed on a full-time basis.”

Potential income is imputed by one of three methods under subdivision 2: the parent’s probable earnings based on employment potential, recent work history, and occupational qualifications in light of prevailing local opportunities; the actual unemployment or workers’ compensation benefit, if the parent is receiving one; or the amount a parent could earn “working 30 hours per week at 100 percent of the current federal or state minimum wage, whichever is higher.”

Subdivision 3 supplies four ways out — a parent is not voluntarily unemployed or underemployed on a showing that the situation (1) “is temporary and will ultimately lead to an increase in income”; (2) “represents a bona fide career change that outweighs the adverse effect of that parent’s diminished income on the child”; (3) is because the parent “is physically or mentally incapacitated or due to incarceration”; or (4) the parent has been found eligible for general assistance or supplemental Security Income. Subdivision 4 adds an absolute rule: no potential income may be imputed to a parent receiving a TANF cash grant or comparable MFIP benefits.

Clause (3) of subdivision 3 is worth flagging on its own. Incarceration is a statutory defense to voluntary underemployment in Minnesota. It is not a reason support is unmodifiable.

Is a new child a change in circumstances?

Not by itself. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(c): “A child support order is not presumptively modifiable solely because an obligor or obligee becomes responsible for the support of an additional nonjoint child, which is born after an existing order.” The nonjoint-child deduction in § 518A.33 is “considered if other grounds are alleged which allow a modification of support” — meaning the new child affects the calculation once a valid trigger exists, but it is not the trigger.

Two more limits on the calculation appear in subdivision 2(e). The court “shall not consider the financial circumstances of each party’s spouse, if any” — a new spouse’s income is not on the table. And the court may not count compensation for work beyond a 40-hour week if the party proves six things, including that the excess employment began after entry of the existing order, is voluntary and not a condition of employment, and — for an obligor in arrears — that the net income from that excess work is going to the arrears until they are paid in full. § 518A.39, subd. 2(e)(2)(i)–(vi).

Does § 518A.39 still govern spousal maintenance?

No. This is the change most likely to produce a misfiled motion.

Before 2024, § 518A.39, subd. 1 opened: “After an order under this chapter or chapter 518 for maintenance or support money, temporary or permanent…” and subd. 2(a) began “The terms of a decree respecting maintenance or support may be modified…” The 2024 act struck the word “maintenance” throughout. 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 101, art. 2, §§ 9–10. Section 11 of the same article repealed subdivision 3 outright — the provision terminating maintenance on death of either party or remarriage of the recipient, which now lives at Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5a in identical words. Article 2 carried no effective-date clause of its own, so it took effect August 1, 2024 under the default in Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (“Each act, except one making appropriations, enacted finally at any session of the legislature takes effect on August 1 next following its final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act.”).

Maintenance modification is now Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5b, and the grounds list is materially shorter — three items, not eight:

(b) The terms of a maintenance order may be modified upon a showing of one or more of the following circumstances that make the terms of the existing order unreasonable and unfair:

(1) substantially increased or decreased gross income of an obligor or obligee;

(2) substantially increased or decreased need of an obligor or obligee; or

(3) substantial changes in the federal or state tax laws that affect spousal maintenance.

Note what is missing from the maintenance list that survives on the child support side: cost-of-living change measured by BLS data, receipt of public assistance, medical expenses, health coverage, and child care. A maintenance recipient whose only argument is inflation no longer has a statutory trigger; the same argument remains § 518A.39, subd. 2(a)(4) for child support. The rest of the 2024 maintenance rewrite — the duration presumptions keyed to length of marriage — is covered in Minnesota spousal maintenance after the 2024 rewrite.

District court or child support magistrate?

This is decided by whether the case is a IV-D case, not by anyone’s preference. Minn. Stat. § 484.702, subd. 1(b): “All proceedings establishing, modifying, or enforcing support orders … must be conducted in the expedited process if the case is a IV-D case. Cases that are not IV-D cases may not be conducted in the expedited process.” A IV-D case is one where a party has assigned support rights to the state because of public assistance or “has applied for child support services under title IV-D.” § 518A.26, subd. 10.

Subdivision 1(c) is the escape valve: a party may, “upon timely notice to the public authority,” bring the motion in district court instead where “additional issues involving domestic abuse, establishment or modification of custody or visitation, or property issues exist as noticed by the complaint, motion, counter motion, or counter action.”

Two traps in that table. Rule 303.03(b) permits the court to cancel the hearing outright if the moving party misses the 21-day deadline, and to treat the motion as unopposed if the responding party misses the 7-day deadline. And Rule 303.03(c)’s certificate of settlement efforts is not optional: “Unless excused by the Court for good cause, no motion shall be heard unless the parties have complied with this rule.”

Whichever track applies, the supporting affidavit must carry the information listed in Minn. Stat. § 518A.46, subd. 3(a) — parties’ names, addresses, and dates of birth; Social Security numbers; other support obligations of the obligor; employers; gross income calculated under § 518A.29; other earnings; health insurance; public assistance received; and “any other information relevant to the computation of the child support obligation under section 518A.34.” Rule 372.02, subd. 3 makes that list an express content requirement of the affidavit in the expedited process, and permits signature under the Minn. Stat. § 358.116 penalty-of-perjury declaration in lieu of notarization.

Finally, § 518A.39, subd. 2(h) says the quiet part plainly: “The court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion for modification of support.” Most of these motions are decided on the affidavits. Build the record in the papers.

Can medical support be modified by itself?

Yes, on a shorter path. Subdivision 8 allows the medical support terms and the child dependency tax credit determination to be modified “without modification of the full order for support or maintenance, if the order has been established or modified in its entirety within three years from the date of the motion,” on one of five showings: a change in availability or a substantial change in cost of health coverage; a change in medical assistance eligibility; a party’s failure to carry ordered coverage or provide other ordered medical support; the dependency credit is not ordered for the same parent ordered to carry coverage; or the credit is not addressed at all and the noncustodial parent carries the coverage.

The trade-off is that the income figures are frozen: “The PICS originally stated in the order being modified shall be used to determine the modified medical support order under section 518A.41 for motions brought under this subdivision.” § 518A.39, subd. 8(e). The pleading burden is correspondingly lighter — § 518A.46, subd. 3a lists six items rather than nine, and asks for “gross income of the parties as stated in the order being modified.” Retroactivity works the same way: date of service. § 518A.39, subd. 8(b).

The biennial cost-of-living adjustment, and why it almost never fires

Minn. Stat. § 518A.75, subd. 1(a) reads as a command: “An order establishing, modifying, or enforcing maintenance or child support shall provide for a biennial adjustment in the amount to be paid based on a change in the cost of living.” The order must name the index and the effective date; the court may use the Minneapolis–St. Paul CPI-U, the Minneapolis–St. Paul CPI-W, or another Department of Labor index it finds more appropriate. Increases compound.

Then subdivision 2 supplies the reason so few obligations are ever adjusted:

No adjustment under this section may be made unless the order provides for it and the public authority or the obligee, if the obligee is requesting the cost-of-living adjustment, sends notice of the intended adjustment to the obligor at the obligor’s last known address at least 20 days before the effective date of the adjustment.

Two independent conditions, either of which defeats an adjustment. If the decree is silent on COLA, there is no adjustment — the remedy is a modification motion, not a COLA notice. If the notice goes out late, that cycle is lost.

The mechanics that follow, from subdivision 1(b) and 2a:

• Timing. For cases where payment goes through the public authority, the adjustment “becomes effective on the first of May of the year in which it is made.” Where payment is not made to the public authority, application may be made in any month, but “no application for an adjustment may be made sooner than two years after the date of the dissolution decree.”
• Waiver. The court “may waive the requirement of the cost-of-living clause if it expressly finds” that the obligor’s occupation or income does not provide for a cost-of-living adjustment, or that the order already contains something like a step increase serving the same function. Separately — and only for maintenance — “[t]he court may waive a cost-of-living adjustment in a maintenance order if the parties so agree in writing.” There is no parallel written-agreement waiver for child support.
• Contesting. The obligor must, before the effective date, file a motion with the court administrator and serve it by first-class mail — on the public authority and the obligee in a public-authority case (heard in the expedited process under § 484.702), or on the obligee alone otherwise (heard in district court). “Upon receipt of a motion contesting the cost-of-living adjustment, the cost-of-living adjustment shall be stayed pending further order of the court.” § 518A.75, subd. 2a(c). Pro se forms must be made available by the court administrator. § 518A.75, subd. 2a(d).
• Outcome. If the obligor “establishes an insufficient cost of living or other increase in income that prevents fulfillment of the adjusted … obligation,” the court or magistrate may direct that all or part of the adjustment not take effect; if not, the adjustment takes effect “as of the date it would have become effective had no hearing been requested.” § 518A.75, subd. 3.

A COLA clause is worth negotiating precisely because it is self-executing on 20 days’ notice and does not require proving a substantial change in circumstances. It is the one mechanism in this area that raises support without a motion.

What terminates automatically, and what does not

Subdivision 5 draws a line that costs obligors real money when they get it wrong. “[A] child support obligation in a specific amount per child terminates automatically and without any action by the obligor” on emancipation. But “[a] child support obligation for two or more children that is not a support obligation in a specific amount per child continues in the full amount until the emancipation of the last child,” or further order. If your decree sets one blended number for three children, the obligation does not step down as each ages out — the obligor must move, and the recalculation uses the parties’ incomes “at the time the modification is sought,” not the incomes in the decree. § 518A.39, subd. 5(c).

“Child” is defined for this purpose as “an individual under 18 years of age, an individual under age 20 who is still attending secondary school, or an individual who, by reason of physical or mental condition, is incapable of self-support.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 5.

Handshake agreements are not modifications

Minnesota has said this the same way for more than fifty years. Heldt v. Heldt, 394 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. App. 1986), affirmed a district court’s refusal to enforce an agreement in which the obligor made a house payment “in lieu of child support,” holding: “Under Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296, 208 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Minn.1973), extra-judicial modifications of a dissolution decree are not valid unless judicially approved.” Heldt, 394 N.W.2d at 535.

The statute is built on the same assumption. Even the parties’ own agreement on an alternative effective date operates only when “the court … select[s]” it under subdivision 2(l). Reduce the deal to a stipulation, serve the motion, and get it signed.

Attorney fees on a modification motion

Section 518A.39, subd. 2(i) routes fees to Minn. Stat. §§ 518.14 and 518A.735. The two do different work, and the mandatory one is § 518.14.

Under § 518.14, subd. 1, “the court shall award attorney fees, costs, and disbursements in an amount necessary to enable a party to carry on or contest the proceeding” on three findings: that the fees are necessary for the good faith assertion of the party’s rights and will not contribute unnecessarily to length or expense; that the party from whom fees are sought has the means to pay; and that the party to whom they are awarded does not. Need-based fees are not discretionary once those findings are made — which is why the findings, not the amount, are where these fights happen.

Subdivision 1a is the discretionary, conduct-based track, and the 2024 amendment broadened it: the court may award additional fees against a party “who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding or whose unreasonable failure to comply with an order or decree causes the other party to seek enforcement or other relief, including the reimbursement of fees and costs incurred before filing a motion.” That closing clause is new, added by 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 101, art. 1, § 5, which took effect August 1, 2024 and applies “to proceedings commenced on or after that date.” Id. art. 1, § 10. Pre-motion collection effort is now compensable.

Section 518A.735 is narrower than its cross-reference suggests. It is an enforcement fee statute: it requires arrearages of at least $500, at least 90 days past due, docketed as a judgment under §§ 548.09 and 548.091; it requires certified-mail notice with an itemization and a 20-day window to demand a hearing; and it caps the recovery at “30 percent of the arrearages.” §§ 518A.735(a), (c), (d).

Related reading

• Minnesota child support is a formula — two of its inputs do almost all the arguing
• Minnesota spousal maintenance after the 2024 rewrite
• Modifying custody in Minnesota: the time bars and the Nice-Petersen hearing problem
• Minnesota’s summary dissolution: the fast divorce almost nobody qualifies for

Madgett Law, LLC

Madgett Law, LLC handles child support and spousal maintenance modification motions in Minnesota district courts and in the expedited child support process, on both sides of the caption — obligors facing an imputed-income argument after a layoff, and obligees whose orders have gone stale against a materially higher income. Because § 518A.39, subd. 2(f) runs the clock from service, the first conversation is usually about how quickly a motion can go out the door. Call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.

Sources: Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 1 (authority; scope after 2024 amendment), subd. 2(a)(1)–(8) (eight modification triggers; “unreasonable and unfair”), subd. 2(b)(1)–(6) (rebuttable presumptions, including the 20 percent / $75 test and the sub-$75 carve-out), subd. 2(c) (additional nonjoint child not presumptively modifying), subd. 2(e)(1)–(2) (apply § 518A.35; no spouse’s finances; six-element excess-employment exclusion), subd. 2(f) (retroactivity limited to date of service), subd. 2(g) (property divisions final; § 518.145, subd. 2 reopening preserved), subd. 2(h) (no evidentiary hearing required), subd. 2(i) (fees governed by §§ 518.14 and 518A.735), subd. 2(l) (alternative effective date only by binding agreement), subd. 5(a)–(c) (automatic termination on emancipation; per-child vs. blended orders), subd. 8(a)–(e) (medical-support-only modification; three-year window; frozen PICS), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.39. Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(d)(1)–(4) (2005 ed.) (repealed retroactivity exceptions), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2005/cite/518.64. 2005 Minn. Laws ch. 164, § 10 (striking the exceptions), § 32 (effective January 1, 2007), at revisor.mn.gov/laws/2005/0/Session+Law/Chapter/164/. 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 101, art. 1, § 5 (§ 518.14, subd. 1a amendment), art. 1, § 10 (article 1 effective August 1, 2024, applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that date), art. 2, §§ 9–10 (striking “maintenance” from § 518A.39, subds. 1–2), § 11 (repealing § 518A.39, subd. 3), at revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/Session+Law/Chapter/101/. Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 5a (maintenance on death or remarriage), subd. 5b(b)–(f) (maintenance modification grounds; retroactivity; alternative effective date), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518.552. Minn. Stat. § 518A.35, subd. 2 (guideline table structure), subd. 3(a)–(b) (income cap and disability exception), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.35. Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1 (voluntary unemployment; full-time presumption), subd. 2(1)–(3) (three imputation methods), subd. 3(1)–(4) (exceptions, including incarceration), subd. 4 (TANF/MFIP bar), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.32. Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 5 (definition of “child”), subd. 10 (definition of IV-D case), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.26. Minn. Stat. § 518A.46, subd. 3(a) (pleading contents for support modification), subd. 3a(a) (medical-support-only pleading contents), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.46. Minn. Stat. § 518A.75, subd. 1(a)–(b) (biennial COLA requirement; May 1 effective date; two-year bar; waiver findings; written waiver for maintenance only), subd. 2 (order must provide for it; 20-day notice), subd. 2a(a)–(d) (contest procedure; automatic stay; pro se forms), subd. 3 (result of hearing), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.75. Minn. Stat. § 484.702, subd. 1(b)–(c) (mandatory and exclusive expedited process for IV-D cases; district court escape valve), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/484.702. Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (default August 1 effective date for non-appropriation acts), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/645.02. Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd. 1 (mandatory need-based fees on three findings), subd. 1a (conduct-based fees), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518.14. Minn. Stat. § 518A.735(a), (c), (d) (enforcement fees; $500 / 90-day / docketed-judgment thresholds; 30 percent cap), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.735. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 303.03(a)(1)–(3), (b), (c), (d)(2) (family court motion timing, consequences, settlement-efforts certificate, oral testimony), at revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/gp/id/303/. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 363.02–.03 (default in the expedited process; 21-day answer or request-for-hearing period), at revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/gp/id/363/. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 364.01, 364.04(e) (right to hearing; seven-day exhibit deadline), at revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/gp/id/364/. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 372.01, subds. 1–2 (commencement; 21-day and 14-day service), 372.02, subd. 3 (affidavit contents; § 358.116 declaration), 372.04, subds. 1–2 (filing deadlines), 372.05, subds. 1–3 (response deadlines), at revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/gp/id/372/. Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814, 823, 825 (Minn. 1999) (majority opinion; preclusion and promptness requirements of former § 518.64, subd. 2(d)(1); retroactive award under the former material-misrepresentation exception), at static.case.law/nw2d/599/html/0814-01.html. Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859, 864 (Minn. 1986) (trigger alone insufficient; “unreasonable and unfair” finding required; guidelines apply in modification proceedings), at static.case.law/nw2d/384/html/0859-01.html. Heldt v. Heldt, 394 N.W.2d 535, 535 (Minn. App. 1986) (extrajudicial modifications invalid absent judicial approval, quoting Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296, 208 N.W.2d 734, 737 (1973)), at static.case.law/nw2d/394/html/0535-01.html. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and it promises no particular outcome in any matter.