Marriage of Wagenman, 376 P.3d 121

Tammy and Matt Wagenman filed a pro se Joint Petition for Dissolution in 2012 attaching Exhibit A, a detailed property settlement allocating 50% equity in the marital home to each spouse and other allocations.
At a brief hearing the court granted the dissolution and entered a Final Decree using the Montana Supreme Court form but did not incorporate Exhibit A; instead the decree awarded the house entirely to Matt and listed an unexplained $180,000 mortgage amount.
For two years the parties acted under the terms of Exhibit A, but when Matt failed to refinance or pay Tammy her equity, Tammy retained counsel in May 2014; in August 2014 both parties discovered Exhibit A had not been incorporated in the Decree.
Matt’s counsel then moved to compel Tammy to quitclaim her interest under the Final Decree; Tammy filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to amend the Decree to incorporate Exhibit A.
The District Court denied Tammy’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, granted Matt’s motion to compel, and awarded Matt attorney fees; the Supreme Court of Montana reversed and remanded and vacated the attorney-fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tammy)	Defendant's Argument (Matt)	Held
Whether denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief was erroneous	The court failed to incorporate the parties’ written separation agreement (Exhibit A) into the Decree, creating extraordinary circumstances; she moved promptly after discovery and was blameless	Exhibit A was only preliminary negotiations and not a binding final contract; parties did not fully comply with its terms	Reversed: court abused discretion; legal error in failing to incorporate Exhibit A or find it unconscionable; Rule 60(b)(6) relief warranted
Whether award of attorney fees to Matt was proper	(Implicit) Fees were improper because court erred on Rule 60(b)(6) and did not consider parties’ financial resources	District Court awarded fees tied to Matt’s motion to compel	Reversed: fee award vacated because District Court did not properly consider financial resources and the underlying ruling was incorrect

Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose’s Saloon, Inc., 166 P.3d 451 (Mont. 2007) (standard for Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary-circumstances test)
Tanascu v. Tanascu, 338 P.3d 47 (Mont. 2014) (public policy favors enforcement of separation agreements)
In re Marriage of Bushnell, 328 P.3d 608 (Mont. 2014) (standard of review for property-division legal conclusions)
In re Marriage of Hopper, 991 P.2d 960 (Mont. 1999) (Rule 60(b) used where a party was wronged through no fault of its own)
Blankenship, 682 P.2d 1354 (Mont. 1984) (court may not substitute its own property division for a separation agreement absent a finding of unconscionability)
Bartell v. Zabawa, 214 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2009) (filing to set aside within a reasonable time where movant acted promptly after discovery)