Subdivision 1. Timing. Within 30 days of the close of the record, the child support magistrate or district court judge shall file with the court an order deciding the motion. In the event a notice to remove is granted pursuant to Rule 368, the 30 days begins on the date the substitute child support magistrate or district court judge is assigned. The record shall be deemed closed upon occurrence of one of the following, whichever occurs later:
If none of the above events occur, the record on a motion for review or combined motion shall be deemed closed forty-six (46) days after service of the notice of filing as required by Rule 365.034, despite the requirements of Rule 354.04. For a motion to correct clerical mistakes and none of the above events occur, the record shall be deemed closed expiration of the time to respond to the motion to correct clerical mistakes.
Subd. 2. Decision.
In addition, the district court judge may remand one or more issues back to the child support magistrate with instructions. If the child support magistrate who issued the order is unavailable, the motion may be assigned by the court administrator to another child support magistrate serving in the judicial district. If any findings or other provisions of the child support magistrate’s or district court judge’s decision and order are approved without change, the child support magistrate or district court judge shall specifically state in the order that those findings and other provisions are affirmed but need not make specific findings or conclusions as to each point raised in the motion. If any findings or other provisions of the child support magistrate’s or district court judge’s decision and order are modified, the child support magistrate or district court judge need only make specific findings or conclusions with respect to the provisions that are modified.
Subd. 3. Record on Review. The review by the child support magistrate or district court judge shall be based upon the decision of the child support magistrate or district court judge and any exhibits and affidavits filed, and, where a transcript has not been filed, may be based upon all or part of the audio or video recording of the hearing.
Subd. 4. Additional Evidence Discretionary. When bringing or responding to a motion to correct clerical mistakes, a motion for review, or a combined motion, the parties shall not submit any new evidence unless the child support magistrate or district court judge, upon written or oral notice to all parties, requests additional evidence.
Subd. 5. No Right to Hearing. A hearing shall not be held unless ordered by the child support magistrate or district court judge. The child support magistrate or district court judge may order a hearing upon motion of a party or on the court’s own initiative. A party’s motion shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause. In the event the child support magistrate or district court judge decides to conduct a hearing, the child support magistrate or the district court judge shall direct the court administrator to schedule a hearing date and to serve notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing upon all parties and the county agency.
Subd. 6. Costs and Fees. The child support magistrate or district court judge may award costs and fees incurred in responding to a motion to correct clerical mistakes, motion for review, or combined motion if the child support magistrate or district court judge determines that the motion is not made in good faith or is brought for purposes of delay or harassment.
Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 377.09
Advisory Committee Comment-2008 Amendment
Rule 377.09, subd. 2(b) is amended to correct language of the existing Rule that could be interpreted to have a mandatory meaning not intended by the Drafters. The revised rule allows the child support magistrate to affirm an order without findings, but does not require that. The rule is intended to adopt expressly a de novo standard of review. The reviewing court need not make findings if the decision is to affirm. De novo review is consistent with the reported decisions construing the former rule. See, e.g. Kilpatrickv. Kilpatrick, 673 N.W.2d528, 530 n.2 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004); Davis v. Davis, 631 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001);
Blonigen v. Blonigen, 621 N.W. 2d276, 280 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001).
.