Minnesota Association for Justice Divorce and Family Law Columns

• 2005: Winter |Spring |Summer |Fall
• 2006: Winter |Spring | Summer | Fall
• 2007: Winter | Spring | Summer

Fall 2006

Supreme Court

Prenuptial Agreements

Antone v. Mirviss

(Filed August 17, 2006)

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in this dispute regarding a prenuptial agreement drafted by Appellant Attorney for Respondent Husband. The district court had ruled that the six-year statute of limitations had begun to run when Respondent was married, and therefore the statute of limitations had expired when Respondent sued Appellant for legal malpractice. The Court of Appeals had reversed, ruling that the statute of limitation did not begin to run until the family court had awarded certain property to Respondent's former wife.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the damage rule of accrual, as opposed to either the occurrence rule or discovery rule. The occurrence rule provides for an early tolling of the statute of limitations; the discovery rule provides for a late tolling; and the damage rule provides for middle ground.

Three justices dissented, while agreeing with reaffirmance of the damage rule, asserting that the rule contemplates that no compensable damage occurs that is contingent on a future event, until such future event occurs. Therefore, since the damage (award of certain property to former wife) was contingent on the marriage dissolution proceeding (future event), the statute of limitations did not begin to run at the time of the marriage.

Court of Appeals

Marital Property

In re the Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson

(Filed September 12, 2006)

The parties while married obtained a loan pertaining to a farming venture that required Appellant Wife to have an equity interest because of her good credit rating. Respondent Husband and his brother quitclaimed farmstead property to the parties in joint tenancy in conjunction with obtaining the loan. When the parties dissolved their marriage, the district court awarded Respondent's brother a one-half interest in the farmstead, notwithstanding the quitclaim deed, and divided the other one-half interest between the parties.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that the quitclaim deed unambiguously conveyed the property to the parties. Therefore, to construe that Respondent's brother still had an interest in the property required parol evidence. The parol evidence rule requires an ambiguity, which is not present here. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the district court essentially (and improperly) imposed a constructive trust in favor of Respondent's brother, who being a non-party, was not subject to the district court's jurisdiction in the marriage dissolution.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

In re the Marriage of Reed v. Albaaj

(Filed October 24, 2006)

The district court dissolved the marriage of Appellant Husband and Respondent Wife notwithstanding Appellant's invocation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Appellant sought review from the Court of Appeals, asserting that he was entitled to suspension of the proceedings while he was incarcerated in a Kansas military prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the SCRA issue, ruling that the Act is meant to allow service members to carry out military service without the distraction of legal proceedings, and that incarceration in a military prison is not within the definition of "active duty."

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, however, on issues of legal custody and nonmarital property, due to insufficient findings in the record to support those provisions of the divorce decree.