Williams Divorce and Family Law

Gerald O. Williams, Attorney

Recent Court Rulings

Minnesota Association for Justice Divorce and Family Law Columns

Spring 2005

Court of Appeals

Child Support

In Re Doll v. Barnell; In Re Strandmark v. Starr

(Filed March 22, 2005)

Two Appellant Fathers contended that Minnesota’s statutory child support guidelines are unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts’ determinations that the support guidelines are not unconstitutional, ruling that the guidelines are not subject to strict scrutiny, and rejecting Appellants’ argument that the guidelines are applied mechanically by the courts of Minnesota.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Appellants did not establish a violation of the equal protection clause, and that the legislature’s reasonable objective of ensuring child support for Minnesota’s children is furthered by the means provided in the legislation. The Court of Appeals also rejected the Appellants’ attempt to challenge the guidelines on federal supremacy grounds, ruling that the state adequately considered the cost of raising children in promulgating the guidelines.

Marital Property

In Re the Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek

(Filed March 29, 2005)

In 1990, Appellant Husband and Respondent Wife acquired certain farmland from Appellant’s mother by contract for deed. In 1999, Appellant allowed the contract for deed to be canceled, unbeknown to Respondent, and the farmland reverted to Appellant’s mother. In 2001, Appellant commenced marriage dissolution proceedings, and Respondent discovered that the contract for deed had been canceled. Respondent sued and obtained the right to reinstate by bringing payments current.

In a prior appellate proceeding, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s characterization of the farmland as Respondent’s nonmarital property, ruling that the district court improperly based the award of the farmland to Respondent on Appellant’s marital misconduct. On remand the district court again awarded the farmland to Respondent, this time based on imputing the value of the farmland to Appellant based upon Appellant’s “disposal” of the marital asset when Appellant allowed the contract for deed to be canceled.

The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the farmland was part of the marital estate, in which case it could not have been already “disposed of”. The case was again remanded for a fair and equitable division of the farmland, which the Court of Appeals reminded, may or may not be an equal division.

Child Support

In Re the Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber

(Filed April 12, 2005)

Appellant Father appealed from a child support magistrate’s order allowing wage withholding to continue despite the fact that the 1993 child support judgment had not been renewed within the ten-year statute of limitations. The child support magistrate had ruled that wage withholding is an administrative remedy, not a judicial remedy, and not subject to the ten-year statute of limitations. The decision relied on previous case authority holding that the collection remedy of tax intercept is not subject to the statute of limitations.

The Court of Appeals reversed, distinguishing tax intercept from wage withholding, and ruling that the applicable statute lacks necessary language authorizing collection remedies to be applied to expired judgments.

Antenuptial Agreements

Antone v. Mirviss

(Filed April 12, 2005)

Appellant Client appealed from the district court’s decision in favor of Respondent Attorney, whom Appellant had sued for malpractice stemming from an antenuptial agreement that Respondent had drafted. The district court had ruled that the six-year statute of limitations on Appellant’s malpractice claim began to run when Appellant and his former wife got married (14 years earlier).

The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the statute of limitation begins to run when the legal malpractice cause of action accrues, and that could not occur until the marriage was dissolved, until which any damages were both contingent (on the marriage dissolution) and unascertainable.

Child Support

In Re the Marriage of Eustathiades v. Bowman

(Filed May 3, 2005)

In 1998, the parties’ seven-year marriage was dissolved, and custody of the parties’ three children was awarded to Respondent Mother. In 2002, the parties stipulated to the award of temporary custody to Appellant Father, and temporary support was reserved. In 2003, the parties stipulated to a final order in accord with the temporary order. When Appellant thereafter sought support enforcement services and the county sought a support order, Respondent argued that a change of circumstances was necessary in order for a support order to be imposed. The district court ruled in favor of Respondent, and Appellant sought appellate review.

The Court of Appeals reversed, in accord with the rule of law that when support is reserved, a subsequent request for support is treated as an initial establishment rather than a modification.

Marital Property

In Re the Stageberg v. Stageberg

(Filed May 3, 2005)

The district court characterized unrecovered contingent fees from Respondent Husband’s law practice as marital property, and assigned and apportioned the marital value in a manner that both Respondent and Appellant Wife found objectionable.

Respondent argued that contingent fees are an expectation interest, not an enforceable right; constitute future (and therefore non-marital) income; and are speculative. The Court of Appeals ruled that contingent fees are marital property in the same way unvested pension rights and incentive stock options are marital property.

Both parties objected to the district court’s calculation of the marital value, and the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the district court’s formula lacked precedential authority, used faulty assumptions and failed to reduce Appellant’s marital share for “present value” purposes. The Court of Appeals directed the district court either to provide a more legally and factually sound calculation, or to reserve jurisdiction until such time as the recovery of contingent fees were to come to fruition.

Appellant also appealed from the district court’s award to Respondent of one-half of her non-marital interest in the homestead, which award was based upon hardship. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that there is no basis in the record to find hardship in accord with the applicable statute.