Marriage of Boland v. Murtha
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 63
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Married October 31, 1998; dissolved January 11, 2005; they share joint legal custody of daughter K.M.M. (born October 25, 2000).
- Mother has sole physical custody; father lives in Duluth with a second home near Aitkin.
- Initial parenting-time arrangement was generous but mother significantly limited visits post-dissolution.
- December 2008: father moved to modify to allow overnight time at the Aitkin home; district court granted some overnights.
- Slightly over a year later, mother moved for expeditor, restrictions pending investigation, and an evidentiary hearing; she submitted five affidavits.
- District court denied the motion, finding no prima facie case and noting affidavits were generally refuted by father; mother appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for Nice-Petersen analysis | Mother argues de novo review of treatment of affidavits. | Father contends abuse-of-discretion standard governs prima facie and evidentiary hearing. | Three-step review applied; remand for proper Nice-Petersen analysis. |
| Did the district court treat moving-affidavits as true and disregard contrary affidavits? | Mother asserts district court failed to accept her affidavits as true. | Father asserts affidavits were properly weighed against contrary statements. | Remand to determine proper treatment of affidavits under Nice-Petersen. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Mother’s appeal did not unreasonably prolong proceedings. | Father seeks fees for unreasonable conduct. | Fees denied; remand for further district-court proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. 1981) (establishes the Nice-Petersen framework for custody/restriction motions)
- Ross v. Ross, 477 N.W.2d 753 (Minn.App. 1991) (discussed affidavits and need for evidentiary hearing)
- Griese v. Kamp, 666 N.W.2d 404 (Minn.App. 2003) (de novo review of first Nice-Petersen step; affidavits conflict resolution)
- Geibe v. Geibe, 571 N.W.2d 774 (Minn.App. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion for prima facie showing; cautions on affidavit treatment)
- Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, 732 N.W.2d 285 (Minn.App. 2007) (outlines three-step Nice-Petersen analysis and standards for each step)
- Morey v. Peppin, 375 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1985) (Cites framework for modification evidentiary hearing decision)