Interest of J.M.
2013 ND 11
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Marilyn and Lorne Sateren were married in 1984 and have a now-emancipated son.
- June 2010 Lorne filed for divorce; restraining provisions prevented asset dissipation.
- November 18, 2010, parties explained a record settlement: Marilyn would receive a home remainder interest, a vehicle, personal property, accounts in her name, and a $50,000 cash distribution; Marilyn waived spousal support; Lorne would receive farmstead, debts, and other assets.
- January 26, 2011, a divorce judgment incorporating the settlement was entered.
- December 22, 2010, Lorne sold farmland for $248,262 without informing Marilyn or the court, triggering Marilyn’s Rule 60 relief motion; sale proceeds later used to satisfy debts and distributions.
- December 2011, district court denied reallocation of marital property; Marilyn appealed denial to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marilyn’s acceptance of the cash distribution waived her right to appeal | Marilyn’s acceptance was unconditional, voluntary, and a substantial benefit | Marilyn’s actions did not show unconditional, voluntary waiver of appeal rights | Waiver not shown; appeal permitted to proceed |
| Whether the district court adequately explained its basis for denying reallocation | District court relied on post-judgment evidence and concepts not clearly tied to the record | Court properly exercised discretion under Rule 60 and equitable principles | Court failed to provide an adequate evidentiary/theoretical basis; remanded for clarification and possible additional evidence |
| Whether selling the farmland affected the division of marital property | Sale breached the settlement terms and impacted the cash distribution | Sale was necessary due to refinancing failure and was not a fraud | District court’s reasoning unclear; remand to evaluate under proper standards |
Key Cases Cited
- DeMers v. DeMers, 2006 ND 142 (ND 2006) (waiver of appeal rights requires unconditional acceptance of a substantial benefit; unusual circumstances may apply)
- Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77 (ND 2003) (limits on waiver rule; strong policy in reaching merits of appeal)
- Eberle v. Eberle, 2009 ND 107 (ND 2009) (district court may revisit rulings; Rule 60 relief and equitable distribution)
- Clark v. Clark, 2005 ND 176 (ND 2005) (appellate scrutiny of district court’s evidentiary basis; need for clear reasoning)