What to Expect During An Intitial Consultation

Although divorce is quite common in our society, we understand that you probably haven't been through it before.  Perhaps the most difficult decision in the entire divorce process is the one that you will make prior to contacting an attorney - the decision to dissolve your marriage.

Once you have determined this is the appropriate step for you to take, you may find yourself puzzled about where to turn. It is likely that you will speak with several attorneys to get a sense of the various approaches they may take in your case and to see if their personality is compatible with yours. At some point, you'll need to decide whether meeting with an attorney as part of an initial consultation is right for you.

We have the privilege of meeting with potential clients quite regularly. During our free initial consultation we try to gather some basic facts about your situation, provide some guidance as to the options that you may face, what the costs and timeframes are with each option and answer any questions you may have about the divorce process, our qualifications to handle the case and our opinion about the merits of your situation. Of importance, we determine together whether it is most appropriate to treat your case as a contested matter or an uncontested dissolution. 

A typical consultation lasts approximately 30 minutes and takes place in our office or over the telephone.  All information shared within the consultation remains strictly confidential and cannot be shared with anyone.

Toward the end of the consultation, we try to get a sense of where you are at with things.  Many of the folks we meet with are just trying to get a broad perspective on what is to come, while others are ready to proceed with the action itself. We are not here to put pressure on anybody. However, if a potential potential client is ready to retain the services of our firm, we provide them with an in-depth client questionnaire to complete and return to us at their convenience.  This allows us to have the key information necessary to properly represent them as we move forward.

Recovery of Fees and Costs

There are two ways for litigants recover attorney's fees from the other party in a Minnesota divorce. The first involves need-based fees. The second involves fees awarded because of inappropriate behavior ("bad-faith conduct") on the part of the other party.

For a fee request based on need, the court is required to award fees and costs in order to enable a party to carry on or contest the dissolution if it finds that the fees are necessary for a good-faith assertion of the party's rights, the fees sought will not contribute unnecessarily to the length and expense of the preceding, the party from whom fees are sought has the ability to pay them, and the party seeking fees does not have the ability to pay them.

A fee award may also be made based upon bad-faith conduct. The fee award will likely be based upon the fact that one party unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the preceding.  This generally means that a litigant must go above and beyond the norm of advocacy in terms of proceeding with their case. The mere fact they are contesting issues and requesting a trial does not necessarily mean that have engaged in "unreasonable" conduct.

Prenuptial Agreements in Minnesota

Minnesota law recognizes the right of the parties to a marriage to rewrite the laws concerning marital dissolution and, instead, contract concerning their rights and obligations should their marriage fail. This can be done in one of two ways.  If the parties wish to enter into an agreement prior to their marriage, they will execute a prenuptial agreement.  If the parties wish to enter into such an agreement after the date of marriage, they will execute a postnuptial agreement.  These two documents are treated very similarly under the law, so they will be discussed collectively here.  However, it is critically important to note that a postnuptial agreement is not valid unless both parties to the agreement are represented by an attorney. The involvement of a lawyer is strongly encouraged when drafting a prenuptial agreement, but it is not absolutely necessary under Minnesota law.

Basic contract principles of offer, acceptance and consideration apply to these agreements.  There must be a "meeting of the minds " in terms of the meaning of the contract a couple enters into.  Additionally, the law requires that there be a complete disclosure of all income, assets and liabilities of each party on the date that the agreement is executed.

Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements typically involve the division of marital assets, the amount and duration of a potential award of spousal maintenance and the obligation of each party in relation to the finances of the household during the marriage.  Some agreements are drafted to protect or preserve the inheritance of a child when a second marriage is involved.

Minnesota law says that any prenuptial or postnuptial agreement must be substantively and procedurally fair.  A party seeking to undo the contract after the fact faces the burden of proving that the agreement was not executed in a fair manner or that its terms are not fair in and of themselves.

Neutral Accounting Expert Denied Quasi-Judicial Immunity

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has opined that experts retained on a neutral basis by the parties to an action for dissolution of marriage are not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity (they are not immune from being sued for malpractice).

In Peterka v. Dennis, appellant sued respondents, an accountant and his employer, asserting that the accountant committed malpractice, for which his employer is vicariously liable, in evaluating businesses in connection with appellant’s dissolution action. Because the accountant was retained as an independent neutral evaluator of the businesses and a Hennepin County District Court Order required appellant and her husband to cooperate with and pay for the evaluation, respondents moved for summary judgment asserting quasi-judicial immunity. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that court appointment and public policy required that respondents be protected by quasi-judicial immunity. Because it concluded that respondent's accountant was not retained or appointed to perform a "judicial" function, the Minnesota Court of Appeals opted to reverse and remand.

The Court held that Dennis’ evaluation of business assets did not involve an "exercise of authority that is essentially judicial in nature." Dennis’ function was to apply sound accounting principles to develop factual bases supporting his expert opinion on the value of businesses in which appellant and her husband had an interest. Dennis had to exercise the same skill and judgment required by those in his profession; but exercise of that judgment did not equate to performing a judicial function. Dennis was retained, whether by appellant and her husband, or by the court, to give his expert opinion on the businesses’ value, not as a "decision-maker to determine competing claims" of appellant and her husband. For these reasons the Court concluded that even if Dennis was a court-appointed neutral, he was not appointed to perform a judicial function, and therefore is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Because Dennis is not entitled to such immunity, Baune Dosen is therefore not entitled to vicarious quasi-judicial immunity.
 

The Concept of No-Fault Divorce

Minnesota is a no-fault divorce state. A divorce will be granted in Minnesota without the necessity of proving that one of the parties is guilty of marital misconduct. In earlier times, a party to a divorce was required to demonstrate that the other spouse was at fault for causing a breakdown in the marriage. Adultory was by far the most common basis, but others included domestic abuse, abandonment and an inability to consumate the marriage.

Today, a party to a divorce in Minnesota must merely demonstrate that there has been an "irretrievable breakdown" in the marital relationship. One spouse must simply acknowledge as much, and the court will grant their request to dissolve the marriage. A relatively low threshold - and a tough pill to swallow for those who feel that there is no "justice" in their case unless the court takes into account marital misconduct.

Potential clients often ask, "Should I fight the divorce?" Yes, if you intend to do so outside of the legal arena through counseling or therapy. Once it is obvious that the marriage cannot be saved, your resistence should be limited to that which is necessary to obtain a favorable court order. Not wanting the divorce can be used as leverage against your spouse if they are anxious to conclude matters. Often, the impatient spouse will buy a quick resolution by making an extremely attractive settlement offer. This strategy should be balanced against overdoing it. If you are fighting the dissolution process out of anger or spite, you are likely to cause significant economic and emotional harm to you, your spouse and your children.