In re the Marriage of: Rosalyn LaRae Johnson, f/k/a Rosalyn LaRae Foster v. Larry Dean Foster
A15-1558
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2016Background
- Rosalyn Johnson divorced Larry Foster in a 2009 judgment that ordered spousal maintenance of $4,000/month starting April 1, 2009 and lasting until the earliest of listed events, including "72 months from entry of the Judgment and Decree." Judgment was entered May 12, 2009.
- Foster appealed; the appeal was settled by a mediated agreement clarifying the award was "temporary and rehabilitative for six years," and the district court entered a postsettlement order "clarifying" paragraph 11 but did not expressly amend the termination clause.
- Foster continued making monthly payments on the 1st and 15th through March 15, 2015. Johnson filed a motion to modify spousal maintenance and for need-based attorney fees on March 27, 2015.
- Foster argued the motion was untimely because his obligation expired on March 15, 2015 (six years from April 1, 2009, per the mediated agreement); the district court agreed and denied both motions.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the postsettlement order did not alter the original termination language (72 months from entry), so maintenance had not yet expired when Johnson moved; the court also remanded for findings on need-based fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Foster) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had authority to hear Johnson's March 27, 2015 motion to modify maintenance | The original decree controls: termination is 72 months from entry (runs past March 2015), so the motion was timely | The mediated settlement (clarifying six-year rehabilitative award) shortened the obligation to terminate in March 2015, so the court lacked authority to hear a March 27 motion | Court held the postsettlement order did not amend the original termination clause; because the original decree controlled, the motion was timely and the court erred in declining to hear it |
| Whether the mediated settlement agreement merged into and altered the district court's postsettlement order | The settlement did not change the termination date in the original judgment | The settlement clarified that maintenance was temporary and rehabilitative for six years, effectively ending obligation March 15, 2015 | Court held mediated agreement merged into the postsettlement order, but because the postsettlement order did not amend the specific termination language, the original 72-month term controlled |
| Whether the original judgment's termination provision was ambiguous | Johnson claimed ambiguity and argued it should be read to extend through April 2015 | Foster argued the settlement made March 15 the end date | Court found the termination language unambiguous: starts April 1, 2009 and runs until 72 months from entry (May 12, 2015), so obligation continued beyond March 2015 |
| Whether the district court properly denied need-based attorney fees without findings | Johnson argued she met statutory criteria and the court needed to make findings | Foster did not contest procedural requirement | Court reversed and remanded because the district court made no findings; remand required to determine good-faith, ability to pay, and Johnson's inability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Moore, 734 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. App. 2007) (maintenance obligation expires when last required payment is made; motion filed after final payment is untimely)
- Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 1994) (court lacks jurisdiction to modify maintenance once payments end absent reservation)
- Shirk v. Shirk, 561 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1997) (stipulation merged into judgment; relief must follow statutory procedures to reopen)
- Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen, 767 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. App. 2009) (insufficient findings on fee awards require remand)
- Stich v. Stich, 435 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1989) (effective appellate review of discretionary decisions requires sufficiently detailed findings)