In re the Marriage of Hutchinson
20-0076
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Robert and Susan Hutchinson divorced in 2010 after stipulating a property split; both signed documents under oath representing full asset disclosure.
- Mandatory discovery required disclosure of retirement accounts; Susan’s affidavit noted a GE retirement account (~$126,000); Robert did not file an affidavit and did not disclose a vested GE pension (vested 2007).
- Robert handed a blank GE consent form to Susan’s counsel before entry of decree; Susan signed it but left plan boxes unchecked; Robert later checked both boxes (pension and savings) and submitted the form to GE but did not return a completed copy to Susan or her attorney.
- The dissolution decree (2010) incorporated the stipulation allocating assets (Robert received the GE 401(k)); it contained findings that each party had full opportunity to inquire or waived that right.
- Susan discovered Robert was receiving a GE pension in 2015, sued in 2016 to vacate/modify the property division for fraud (Count I) and to modify spousal support (Count II); the district court found extrinsic fraud, awarded Susan a pension share and reimbursement, and ordered limited sanctions against Robert.
- On appeal the court reversed the modification of the property division, vacated the sanctions award, and remanded for reconsideration of fee issues (holding Susan failed to show she exercised reasonable diligence to discover the fraud within one year).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Susan) | Defendant's Argument (Robert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the divorce property division be modified for fraud after one year? | Robert committed extrinsic fraud by concealing the GE pension and swearing full disclosure, so equity can vacate/modify despite the one‑year rule. | Property division in an unappealed decree is final; alleged fraud is intrinsic (inheres in the divorce proceedings) and Susan is time‑barred under rule 1.1013. | Reversed: Susan failed the equitable test because she did not exercise reasonable diligence to discover the pension within one year; dismissal of Count I. |
| Was it proper to award Susan a share of Robert’s retirement / order reimbursement from his later 401(k)? | Susan is entitled to an equitable share of the concealed GE pension and retroactive reimbursement. | Court lacked authority to divide a post‑divorce 401(k); award of a portion of Robert’s later 401(k) was improper. | Reversed: The property modification (including award from the later 401(k)) was vacated. |
| Did the district court err by not awarding Robert attorney fees for his partial summary‑judgment win on spousal‑support modification? | Robert asks fees because he prevailed on Count II at summary judgment. | Trial court believed fees were not awardable in Rule 1.1012 actions. | Remanded: Court has discretion under the spousal‑support statute to consider fees; district court should reconsider. |
| Were the $7,056 discovery sanctions against Robert proper and sufficiently explained? | Susan sought fees as sanctions for Robert’s discovery failures; amount tied to fee affidavits. | Robert contends sanction amount lacks explanation and record support. | Vacated and remanded: appellate court ordered development of the unredacted fee record and detailed factual findings to justify any sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauer v. Rohde, 257 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1977) (distinguishes intrinsic fraud from extrinsic fraud)
- Graves v. Graves, 109 N.W. 707 (Iowa 1906) (contemplates relief where concealed assets and false testimony caused an unjust decree)
- Johnson v. Mitchell, 489 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (equitable vacatur requires extrinsic fraud, reasonable diligence, and proof of fraud elements)
- In re Marriage of Thatcher, 864 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2015) (property division in an unappealed dissolution decree is generally final)
- Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc., 773 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (trial courts must make detailed findings when awarding attorney‑fee sanctions)
- Phipps v. Winneshiek County, 593 N.W.2d 143 (Iowa 1999) (false testimony is intrinsic fraud)
- Baldwin v. City of Estherville, 929 N.W.2d 691 (Iowa 2019) (standards for awarding appellate attorney fees for bad‑faith or oppressive conduct)