With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". guidelines) with Minn.Stat. § 518.54, subd. 4a (2004) (“[s]upport order” includes rulings requiring a party to provide “monetary support, child care, [or] medical support”). Because the substantially changed circumstances required by Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2, to modify child support must render the existing support obligation unreasonable and unfair, the changed circumstances must pertain to the portion of the obligation sought to be modified. Thus, if multiple types of child support are involved in multiple motions to modify, the mere statement in a prior order that there was no substantial change in circumstances rendering the existing obligation unreasonable and unfair does not necessarily justify invoking res judicata in a subsequent proceeding. See Loo, 520 N.W.2d at 744 (<HOLDING>). Here, the CSM’s statements from the bench in

A: holding untimeliness of motion to modify medical insurance payment did not preclude motion to modify maintenance
B: holding that a postjudgment motion to incorporate a sanction as part of the final judgment is a motion to modify the judgment and extends the trial courts jurisdiction
C: holding that untimeliness is sufficient grounds for denying a motion to quash
D: holding the court had no jurisdiction to modify a validly imposed sentence on prisoners own motion
A.