In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton
A16-518
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Husband filed for dissolution in 2013; discovery concerned husband’s interests in several discretionary trusts (only one distribution recorded in 2007). Trustees produced trust instruments under attorneys’-eyes-only protection.
- The parties mediated and signed a settlement agreement in January 2015 dividing property and awarding permanent spousal maintenance to wife. Trial was cancelled; the parties did not sign a stipulated final decree.
- The parties submitted competing proposed findings; the district court entered a partial judgment in May 2015 adopting the agreed terms, expressly reserving attorney-fee entitlement and wife’s baseline income for maintenance modification. The partial judgment declared husband’s interest in specified trusts nonmarital and set husband’s salary-based income.
- Five months later wife moved to vacate the partial judgment, alleging she lacked capacity when she signed the settlement; she submitted an affidavit describing illness, medication, pressure from the mediator, and intended witnesses.
- The district court denied the motion to vacate under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, held the parties’ income baseline agreed at $12,500, and awarded husband $18,286 in conduct-based attorney fees for wife’s conduct in prolonging the case.
- Wife appealed, arguing (1) error treating husband’s trust interests as nonmarital and failing to account for trust income when awarding maintenance, (2) error denying vacatur for lack of capacity and not holding an evidentiary hearing, and (3) error in awarding conduct-based attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether husband’s trust interests are marital property and whether trust income should affect maintenance | Sparks: trusts should be marital or at least trust income ought to be considered for maintenance calculation | Anton: both parties proposed and the court adopted findings treating trust interests as nonmarital; no record of regular trust income | Court: wife waived challenge by proposing/accepting the finding; no preserved error on trust income and record shows no regular distributions, so no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the partial judgment should be vacated for wife’s lack of capacity when signing settlement | Sparks: she was ill, medicated, under duress, and lacked capacity to assent, so judgment should be reopened | Anton: partial judgment incorporated the settlement; statutory vacatur standard controls and wife did not meet any statutory ground | Court: applied Minn. Stat. § 518.145; wife failed to rebut presumption of competence and did not prove a statutory ground or fraud on the court; vacatur properly denied |
| Whether the court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on capacity | Sparks: factual dispute over competence required live testimony | Anton: wife did not timely request oral testimony; affidavit and filings were sufficient; no good cause shown | Court: district court did not abuse discretion; wife did not request a hearing as required and affidavits failed to show good cause |
| Whether conduct-based attorney fees were improper | Sparks: her refusal to accept and later actions were not unreasonable | Anton: wife’s reneging, post-settlement challenges, and enforcement-responses unreasonably prolonged proceedings; fees appropriate under Minn. Stat. § 518.14 | Court: fee award affirmed; findings supported that wife unreasonably contributed to length/expense and conduct-based fees require no bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1997) (district courts have broad discretion in maintenance/property division)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (issues not presented to the trial court generally will not be considered on appeal)
- Toughill v. Toughill, 609 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. App. 2000) (distinguishes standards for vacating pre-judgment stipulations vs. judgments incorporating stipulations)
- Shirk v. Shirk, 561 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1997) (§ 518.145 provides exclusive statutory grounds to reopen dissolution judgments)
- Brodsky v. Brodsky, 733 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. App. 2007) (requirement for findings when awarding conduct-based attorney fees)
- Geske v. Marcolina, 624 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. App. 2001) (conduct-based attorney fees may be awarded without proof of bad faith)