338 P.3d 47
Mont.2014Background
- Linda Tanascu and Gary Tanascu married in 1980 and separated in 2012.
- Parties participated in mediation; they entered a written property settlement agreement in November 2012 with Gary retaining his pension and Linda getting the home equity; Linda waived all claims to Gary’s retirement benefits except survivor beneficiary status.
- The district court incorporated the settlement into a decree of dissolution on March 8, 2013 after finding full disclosures and that the agreement was fair and not unconscionable.
- Linda filed a motion for relief from the decree under MCA 40-4-208 and MRCP 60(b) in February 2014, claiming the settlement was unconscionable and the court failed to determine net marital estate value.
- District Court denied Linda’s motion to reopen and modify, finding no basis to modify the settlement or to re-open the decree.
- Appellate review is for an abuse of discretion; a court’s determination of unconscionability is presumed correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the decree be reopened/modifed under 40-4-208(3)(b) and MRCP 60(b)? | Linda contends the settlement was unconscionable and requires independent valuation. | Settlement included non-modification clause; Linda consented; no change in circumstances shown. | No modification; no independent valuation required; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Anderson, 371 Mont. 321 (Mont. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for 60(b) motions in dissolution cases)
- In re Marriage of Miller, 616 P.2d 313 (Mont. 1980) (amicable settlement policy; binding property agreements)
- In re Marriage of Caras, 868 P.2d 615 (Mont. 1994) (courts not required to value assets when settlement agreed)
- In re Marriage of Bolstad, 660 P.2d 95 (Mont. 1983) (non-modification clause prevents later modification)
- In re Marriage of Cortese, 341 Mont. 287 (Mont. 2008) (settlement terms ‘may not be modified’ absent unconscionability)