Marriage of DeCock, DA 25-0615

Taralyn and Dean DeCock dissolved a fifteen-year marriage after Taralyn moved out, filed for dissolution, and the parties mediated property issues in March 2024. 1
Before mediation, Taralyn received Dean’s financial disclosures listing multiple retirement assets, and the parties later executed an MPSA dividing marital property and retirement accounts. 2
The MPSA stated the parties had disclosed all assets, waived final disclosures and a hearing, and agreed the division was fair and equitable. 3
After the district court denied Taralyn’s motion to rescind the MPSA as unconscionable, she signed a joint affidavit asking the court to adopt the MPSA in the final decree. 4
The district court entered the final decree on February 25, 2025, and Taralyn later filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion claiming gross neglect by prior counsel regarding Dean’s retirement assets. 5
The Rule 60 motion was deemed denied, and Taralyn appealed, but her appeal from the final decree was untimely. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief? 7	Taralyn said counsel’s failure to disclose retirement assets caused an unconscionable, inequitable settlement.	Dean argued Taralyn merely relitigated the rescission ruling and was not blameless.	No; the motion was a substitute for appeal and Taralyn was not blameless. 8
Was Taralyn blameless for the judgment’s circumstances? 9	Taralyn said any blame lay with prior counsel’s gross neglect, not her.	Dean argued Taralyn knew the assets, signed the MPSA, and later affirmed it in a joint affidavit.	No; her later affidavit and assent to the decree defeated blamelessness. 10
Could Rule 60(b)(6) be used after denial of rescission? 11	Taralyn said the motion addressed postjudgment attorney misconduct, not the rescission issues.	Dean argued the Rule 60 motion repeated the same facts and theory as the rescission motion.	No; Rule 60(b)(6) cannot relitigate issues already decided. 12

In re Marriage of Orcutt, 360 Mont. 353, 253 P.3d 884 (Mont. 2011) (Rule 60(b) abuse-of-discretion standard and extraordinary-circumstances requirement 13)
Tanascu v. Tanascu, 377 Mont. 1, 338 P.3d 47 (Mont. 2014) (Montana policy favors amicable settlement of marital disputes 14)
Miller v. Miller, 189 Mont. 356, 616 P.2d 313 (Mont. 1980) (courts should not alter spouses’ property agreements absent compelling injustice 15)
In re Marriage of Remitz, 393 Mont. 423, 431 P.3d 338 (Mont. 2018) (Rule 60 balances finality and substantial justice 16)
Wagenman v. Wagenman, 384 Mont. 149, 376 P.3d 121 (Mont. 2016) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances and a blameless movant 17)
Lussy v. Dye, 215 Mont. 91, 695 P.2d 465 (Mont. 1985) (Rule 60(b)(6) is not a substitute for appeal of an allegedly erroneous decision 18)
Estate of Kinnaman v. Mt. W. Bank, N.A., 382 Mont. 153, 365 P.3d 486 (Mont. 2016) (Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used merely to ask the court to change its mind 19)
Matthews v. Don K Chevrolet, 327 Mont. 456, 115 P.3d 201 (Mont. 2005) (party was not blameless where client’s own conduct contributed to the judgment 20)
Griffin v. Scott, 218 Mont. 410, 710 P.2d 1337 (Mont. 1985) (client not blameless where delay and lack of notice contributed to default 21)