Minneapolis Divorce Attorney & Lawyer : Minnesota Family Law Firm : Brown Law Offices : St. Paul, Twin Cities MN

About half the cases we handle are more contested divorces. These are marital dissolution cases in which the litigants don’t expect to reach agreement early and, instead, need the intervention of the court system in order to reach a resolution.

These divorces typically involve four distinct segments.

The first segment of work in a contested case involves the case workup. This is where we put together the initial pleadings in the case and serve and file them. You will complete an initial questionnaire and provide documentation to us so that we can adequately move forward and understand exactly what relief is sought.

Following the service of the summons and petition, we will participate in what’s called an initial case management conference. This is a first meeting with the judge, on an informal basis, to talk about the issues that are in controversy. The court, at that point, might refer the matter for an early neutral evaluation. This is a process where the parties can meet with a court-appointed expert and try to settle the case before becoming too entrenched.

If matters don’t resolve at the early neutral stage, then we move into the next phase - called discovery. This is a process where we’re going to gather information from your spouse. We may do so formally, or informally.

In addition, we may elect to schedule a motion for temporary relief. This is a hearing in which the court will make a determination, on a temporary basis, of who is going to reside in the homestead, who is going to have temporary custody of the children, and what sort of temporary alimony, or child support awards, are appropriate. Quite often cases will settle following the entry of a temporary order, because the parties have a preview into how the judge views the facts of the case.

However, if the case has to continue, we will position your case for the settlement stage. We’re going to attempt to work out matters either through mediation, or some other form of alternative dispute resolution.

If we’re not able to work it out, the court will call us back in, and we will participate in a pre-trial conference, where we’re going to try one last time to get the case settled, with the assistance of the judge.

The fourth phase involves preparation for and actually trying the case. The judge has 90 days to issue a written decision following the end of the trial, and if either party is dissatisfied with the outcome, they have an additional 60 days in which to file an appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The pilot family mediation project of the Minnesota Court of Appeals appears headed toward becoming a permanent component of the appellate process in Minnesota.

Two years ago, the Court of Appeals began experimenting with voluntary participation in mediation immediately following the filing of an appeal. Most, including myself, were skeptical. Mediation has traditionally involved negotiation prior to trial, not after. Trial typically leaves the litigants even further at odds with one another, with litigants on appeal considered the most conflicted.

However, the Court reports that since inception, the pilot program has resulted in a 52% settlement success rate. I find that astonishing, given the temperment of those participating in an appeal.

As many have commented, it appears family court litigants continue to appreciate an opportunity to "take the law into their own hands" and control the outcome of their dispute. I say that because of the exploding trend toward early settlement of divorce cases through early neutral evaluation. Some counties report 80% of divorce cases settling through ENE.

Last week, I heard grumblings from a court administrator that some lawyers are flustered by the settlement rates. What a shame. I suspect attorneys who work at firms with billable quotas can't stand the idea of losing out on an opportunity to bill hours for the flurry of letters, phone calls, hearings and trials that necessarily accompany conflict-loaded cases.

This appears to be a win-win-win. The courts? Fewer resources needed in family court. The clients? Less cost, less turmoil, more control. The lawyers? A more rewarding, productive practice model.

The keys to success in early resolution, in my mind, are two-fold. You need to find a lawyer with two seemingly competing characteristics: (1) a reputation for success in the courtroom; and (2) a sincere desire to settle matters early. We find that cases tend to settle early when the opposing attorney knows we aren't afraid to (capably) try cases. But, our goal for every client is to litigate only when absolutely necessary. That combination has worked well for those we represent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I mentioned the new pilot family law mediation program at the Court of Appeals. Direct from the source, here are the answers to common questions received by the Minnesota Court of Appeals concerning appellate mediation in divorce and family cases. Thought this information would be helpful for any family litigant contemplating mediation, whether because of an appeal or a district court action.

What is Mediation?

Mediation is a flexible, non-binding and confidential process in which an impartial person, the mediator, helps individuals and their attorneys have dialogue that promotes settlement.

Mediators:

• Improve communication and enhance understanding between the participants;
• Help participants articulate their needs and understand the needs of others;
• Probe the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s legal positions;
• Identify areas of agreement; and,
• Help generate options for a mutually agreeable resolution to the dispute.

A hallmark of mediation is its capacity to expand traditional settlement discussion and broaden resolution options, often by exploring participants’ needs and interest that may be formally independent of the legal issues on appeal. The mediator generally does not give an overall evaluation of the case.

Why Appellate Mediation?

The benefits of appellate mediation can include:

• Avoids the risk of reversal. There is a chance that the trial court judgment may be reversed on appeal and remanded for further, costly proceedings.
• More satisfactory results. The trial court judgment might not satisfy even the prevailing party. A mediator can assist the parties to achieve their real goals.
• Focus on Children. For issues where children are involved, mediation helps parents focus on their best interests.
• Economical. The mediation process begins at the outset of the appeal. This can save substantial costs of preparing the record and briefs. 
• Rapid settlements. Mediation can resolve a dispute in a matter of days, while an appeal takes much longer.
• Allows more client participation. Clients without attorneys participate in the appeals process through written submissions only, and do not have a hearing. Even clients with attorneys can feel frustrated by their restricted role. 
• Higher rate of follow through. Parties who have reached their own agreement in mediation are generally more likely to comply with its terms than those whose resolution has been imposed upon them. 
• Reduces stress. Mediation encourages cooperation and communication, while discouraging the adversarial atmosphere of litigation.
• Avoids financial risk. A judgment for payment or transfer of property still does not ensure collection.

Who Attends the Mediation?

All parties to the appeal, and their lawyers if they have them, are required to attend the mediation. Under special circumstances, other arrangements may be made, if acceptable to the mediator and all parties. This requirement reflects the Court of Appeal’s view that the principal values of mediation include affording the litigants opportunities to articulate their wants and needs directly to the other parties and the mediator, and to hear first hand the other party’s wants and needs. Mediation also enables parties to directly discuss opportunities for mutually acceptable solutions.

How Should I Prepare for Mediation?

If you are pro se, you can think about these ideas before attending mediation, or discuss them with someone you trust. Attorneys and clients can discuss these ideas together before attending mediation:

Understand your goals and needs. Mediation helps parties explore what really matters to them. You can prepare for mediation by thinking about what you need to allow you to resolve the matter. Needs are not just what you WANT the court to do, but also WHY you want it ... think about how getting what you want will benefit you and your family?

• Expect the discussion to go beyond the legal issues. Think about what is of highest value to you? It might not be what is in the appeal. For example, sometimes your children’s stability, being respected, a favorable relationship with someone, or end of the stress of litigation can be of equal or higher value than money or principle.
• Prioritize. Think about what interests are most important to you to achieve. Understand where you may be willing to make concessions to get what you most want.
• Think about what the other party needs. Other parties have their own goals and needs. They may overlap with yours, or they may be different. Mediation tries to find creative ways to help both party’s meet many of their needs. Think about questions to ask the other party to understand what is most important to them.
• Create a list of options. Consider a variety of ways to meet your needs, and those of the other party. Be creative and leave the possibility open that you will find more options through your discussions in mediation.

Who Are the Mediators and How Are They Selected?

The twelve-member pilot project panel consists of highly respected mediators. All of them are attorneys, and have many years of family mediation experience, and an understanding of the appellate process. They are qualified family neutrals under the MN General Rule of Practice for the District Courts Rule 114, and have completed additional training on appellate mediation. They agreed to serve on this pilot panel on a sliding fee basis because they want to help people in the appellate process try a different path to resolution. You will receive a list of available mediators and short bios for them when your case is referred to mediation. You then have the opportunity to rank your preference of mediator, or agree together with the other side on who you want to choose.

What Happens if I am Ordered Into Mediation?

An Order for Mediation, Confidential Information Form (“CIF”) and this information sheet is sent to the lawyers and parties who do not have lawyers. The Order stays (stops) the appellate process from moving forward. Transcripts will not be ordered, and briefing will not be scheduled. This is to help parties avoid the costs of the appeal if they are able to reach resolution in mediation. Parties are required to complete the CIF and return it to the Court within 15 days. This form does not become a part of the court record. The form gives parties the ability to opt out of the mediation program with a valid reason. Parties also provide income and asset information to the Court to determine appropriate fees for mediation. The Court will set the fees and refer the case to the mediation coordinator, who will help the parties to select their mediator and schedule a telephone conference with him or her.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the second time in as many weeks, no family law decisions issued by the Minnesota Court of Appeals or Minnesota Supreme Court. The likely culprit? A new pilot appellate mediation program aimed specifically at family law cases. My guess is the former flood of appellate opinions is being limited by the settlement of cases.

The pilot program, which began 18 months ago, is designed, according to the State, "with the goal of decreasing the conflict levels for families, decreasing the costs to litigants and the court, and increasing efficiency and litigation satisfaction."  The process is structured to reinforce and work cooperatively with the early-neutral-evaluation and other alternative-dispute processes that are become more common at the district court level.

Referral to mediation takes place after the appellant's Statement of the Case has been filed and the filing fee has been paid, but occurs before the briefing stage and before litigants incur the substantial costs of ordering transcripts from the district court where the case originated. Good news; parties to an appeal can expect to spend no less than $10,000.00 each to get through the process.

About a week ago I received a Notice of Appeal from an opposing litigant. Thus far, the Court of Appeals has stayed the proceeding (did so almost immediately) and ordered the parties to mediate within 90 days. The parties are able to rank  five highly qualified mediators appearing on the Court's roster of approved neutrals. The combined blind rank of each party will determine who will serve as the neutral. A sliding fee scale has been implemented, to facilitate various income and net worth levels.

I've heard nothing but good things about the program. I'll update the process as I work my way through it for the first time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a published decision entitled Alam v. Chowdhury, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has found that marital property involves acquisitions or increases in value during the marriage itself (not beyond) - even if one party commits fraud upon the court. Judge Hudson wrote for the majority.

The parties were married in 1979. Husband filed a Petition for divorce in 2001, serving Wife and showing her a proposed Marital Termination Agreement. She failed to provide an Answer and Husband moved for default judgment. The district court granted default judgment and signed a Judgment and Decree that was consistent with Husband's proposed Marital Termination Agreement.

In January of 2006, Wife moved to re-open, based upon allegations that Husband misrepresented the value of assets, claimed pre-marital assets that he could not trace and referenced an inheritance that Wife "was to" receive in the relevant Agreement. The district court found that husband committed a fraud upon the court and valued his retirement plan as of January of 2006 - five years after the dissolution of the marriage. Husband appealed.

While the court of appeals found that the court did properly re-open, it also found that the district court improperly applied Minnesota's valuation statute, which reads:

[t]he court shall value marital assets for purposes of division between the parties as of the day of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, unless a different date is agreed upon by the parties, or unless the court makes specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable. If there is a substantial change in value of an asset between the date of valuation and the final distribution, the court may adjust the valuation of that asset as necessary to effect an equitable distribution.

Judge Hudson wrote:

Here, it is undisputed that the parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2001. Thus, during their post-dissolution cohabitation, they were not living in a marital or purportedly marital relationship; accordingly, property acquired during that cohabitation was not marital. Because the district court’s application of the presumption of marital property ignores the part of the statute requiring a marital or purportedly marital relationship, the district court’s application of the presumption runs afoul of the requirement that “[e]very law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”

The court of appeals reversed, and ordered the district court to value and divide the account appropriately.

In his dissent, Judge Worke opined that "[b]ecause disregard of legal process and lack of due diligence in objecting to the dissolution weigh heavily against reopening the judgment and decree after so much time has passed, I part from the majority, and determine that the district court abused its discretion by vacating the judgment and decree."

Troubling to many clients is the fact that the court will often value assets as of the date of the first pre-trial conference. This hearing is the final hearing to take place before trial and often occurs more than a year following the service of the Summons and Petition. It seems to me that the standard would be just if the date of service of the initial pleadings served as the valuation date. That way, litigants wouldn't be deterred from purchasing property, placing money into retirement accounts or saving money for the difficult future they face.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an unpublished decision entitled In re the Matter and Welfare of the Child of  BTN and AVD, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a district court order terminating the parental rights of the child's parents. Judge Bjorkman wrote without dissent.

BTN and AVD are the parents of DD, who was born on February 6, 2007. One week later, Stearns County Human Services filed a petition alleging that DD was a child in need of protection or services because the parent's first child, AD, experienced egregious harm while in their care, resulting in his death. After an emergency protective-care hearing, DD was placed in foster care. The county subsequently determined that AD had experienced egregious harm while in the care of BTN. and AVD. On that basis, the county petitioned to terminate the parental rights of DD's mother and father.

AD was nine months old when he was taken to the emergency room. BTN and AVD told the responders that AD had been standing in front of the couch and had suddenly arched his back and fallen backward onto the carpeted floor.  AD was nonresponsive, and the emergency room doctor who examined him concluded that he had suffered severe head trauma.  The doctor ordered a CT scan of AD’s head, which revealed a subdural hematoma.  AD died during brain surgery.  An autopsy was performed, and the medical examiner concluded that AD’s death was a homicide, caused by blunt trauma to the head, which resulted in a skull fracture and a subdural hematoma.

In orders dated November 29, 2007, the district court terminated the parental rights of BTN and AVD based on its determination that a child (not DD, but AD) had experienced egregious harm in their care and that it was in DD’s best interests for both parents’ parental rights to be terminated.

Parent rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons. The court must exercise great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result. A district court may terminate parental rights based on a determination:

that a child has experienced egregious harm in the parent’s care which is of a nature, duration, or chronicity that indicates a lack of regard for the child’s well-being, such that a reasonable person would believe it contrary to the best interest of the child or of any child to be in the parent’s care. 

Egregious harm means the infliction of bodily harm to a child or neglect of a child which demonstrates a grossly inadequate ability to provide minimally adequate parental care. To terminate the rights of a parent who has not personally inflicted egregious harm on a child, a court must find that the parent either knew or should have known that the child had experienced egregious harm.

On appeal, the parents contended that contend that the district court’s findings were insufficient to meet the "knowledge" standard - and the court of appeals agreed:

The district court found that AD’s fatal injuries were non-accidental and constitute egregious harm. The district court further found that because BTN and AVD were AD’s only caretakers, at least one of them must have caused the egregious harm and that a non-perpetrating parent would have reasonably known of the harm because of AD’s 'noticeable symptoms.' But the finding that a non-perpetrating parent would have observed symptoms is, at most, a finding that the parent knew or should have known that AD was injured. It is not a finding that a non-perpetrating parent would have been reasonably aware that AD had sustained egregious harm. The district court did not determine which parent caused the harm, identify the 'noticeable symptoms,' or find that the symptoms would have reasonably led a non-perpetrating parent to know that AD’s injury was the result of 'some conduct' satisfying the ‘egregious harm’ definition.

Judge Bjorkman concluded:

Because Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6), requires a finding that the non-perpetrating parent not only knew of an injury but also knew or should have known that the injury was sustained 'as a result of some conduct satisfying the ‘egregious harm’ definition,' the district court’s findings with respect to a non-perpetrating parent’s knowledge are insufficient.

The court was essentially saying that a non-perpetrating parent cannot be held responsible for egregious harm to a child unless the parent, because of actual or reasonable knowledge, had the opportunity to respond to or protect against the harm. While the district court found that each party gained knowledge of the actions of the other after the suit was initiated by the county, knowledge acquired after the fact does not meet the relevant standard to terminate parental rights.

As noted above, parent rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons under Minnesota law. Like you, I am shaking my head. These two parents have seemingly gotten away with the murder of a child based on the "I know nothing" defense, pointing at each other. Bad enough that they are allowed to even conceive another child. Now, they get to keep it?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an opinion filed March 3, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a Dakota County District Court's reduction, not elimination, of husband's spousal maintenance obligation following retirement. Judge Halbrooks wrote, without dissent, in Wisness v. Wisness.

The Wisness' 30-year marriage was dissolved by a stipulated judgment and decree on September 17, 1993. The stipulated judgment and decree resolved the vast majority of the issues in their case, including alimony. As a result of the parties' agreement, husband was ordered to pay respondent $1,450 per month in permanent spousal maintenance.

Three years later, at age 56, husband had an opportunity to take early retirement from his employer. He moved the district court to terminate or reduce his spousal maintenance obligation. The retirement package that he was offered provided for a 50% reduction in income until he turned 62. The district court denied husband's motion, stating that while appellant could take advantage of the retirement opportunity, he could not avoid his obligation to pay support by voluntarily reducing his income. Despite that decision, husband opted for early retirement.

In 2007, then 67, husband moved the district court to eliminate his spousal maintenance obligation. He had remarried and was then working part-time as a school-bus driver, earning annual wages of $3,271 and $1,481 per month in social-security and Medicare payments. Despite a finding that husband retired in good faith, the district court declined to fully eliminate his alimony obligation:

It is fair and equitable to reduce [appellant’s] spousal maintenance obligation by approximately 50%, in light of both parties[’] present ability to meet their ongoing living expenses. Both parties will have to curtail their expenses or dip into their marital property to make up for the shortfall they each will sustain as a result of this modification of spousal maintenance.

Husband appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, opining  that findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance must be upheld unless they are "clearly erroneous." The court found that the district court considered the statutory factors of wife's financial resources relative to her ongoing expenses. Relying heavily on the "standard of living" element of Minnesota's maintenance statute, Judge Halbrooks determined that wife's projected rent, medication expenses and health insurance expenses were reasonable.

Husband argued that he should not have to pay spousal maintenance because his ongoing monthly expenses were $183 less than his monthly gross (pre-tax) income. However, the court affirmed that, despite the shortfall, a mere reduction (as opposed to elimination) was appropriate and that the district court gave weight to the fact that both parties will have to curtail expenses or dip into their marital property in order to satisfy their monthly expenses.

At the end of the day, Wisness makes it clear that a maintenance obligor who retires in good faith may still be obligated to pay spousal maintenance to their ex. The safe bet for an obligor who has agreed to pay permanent spousal maintenance? Establish a specific timetable for termination of the obligation, if possible.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed a substantial spousal maintenance award.

In McCarney v. Hartleben, Ms. McCarney was stay-at-home mother who had taken some courses in an effort to obtain a degree in psychology. Dr. Hartleben worked as a surgeon, earning a net monthly income of approximately $30,000 on gross income of $600,000 per year.

Judge Stauber, in an unpublished decision, opined that the trial court did not err in granting McCarney monthly spousal maintenance payments of $13,000 conditioned on a reduction to $8,000 per month when she obtained the certification necessary to work as a licensed psychologist. Judge Stauber noted:

Findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. In order to successfully challenge a district court’s findings of fact, the party challenging the findings must show that despite viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings . . . the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.

The court did reverse and remand an award of $800 per month to Ms. McCarney to pay her life insurance premiums.

As referenced in other posts on our blog, alimony awards are based upon several factors, including the length of marriage, the financial need of the spouse seeking maintenance (comparing their anticipated income against their reasonable monthly expenses) and the ability of the spouse being asked to pay alimony to make payments to their spouse. The reasonableness of the parties' budgets is based upon the standard of living the enjoyed during the marriage.

In this case, the court indicated that the parties lived a "lavish lifestyle" and had no difficulty accepting the wife's projected budget of $13,000 per month. Given the husband's substantial earnings and the length of the parties' marriage, the court required him to pay a rather significant figure each month.

The good news for husband? Alimony payments are tax deductible. Given his tax bracket, he'll probably only suffer an out-of-pocket loss of approximately fifty-percent of the payment made to his ex wife.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Judge Halbrooks has been busy at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She recently issued three dissolution decisions, none of which were published. Two cases involved property allocation issues, one involved a joint physical custody award and two involved child support calculations:

• Popel v. Popel: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody to the parties but remanded for a recalculation of child support and reallocation of non-marital interests.
• Blaeser v. Fiscus: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks opined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to modify child support following the emancipation of appellant's oldest child. 
• Murphy v. Murphy: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in the district court's unequal allocation of marital property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently rendered three family law decisions, none of which warranted publication. One case involved child support issues, another custody and child support and the third property valuation and division:

• Donovan v. Donovan: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Shumaker held that a child support bonus provision was unambiguous and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable to child support cases.
• Adler v. Espinosa: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Lansing opined that the district court appropriately determined physical custody and child support obligation.
• McCormick v. McCormick: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in district court's valuation of real estate and denial of fee award, but reversed district court's award of 100% of the marital equity in the homestead to wife.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Three family law appellate decisions for review this week: one adoption opinion from the Minnesota Supreme Court, one published interstate child support opinion from the Court of Appeals and one unpublished divorce opinion from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

• C.O. v. Doe: Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Page held that due process required an evidentiary hearing to take place before termination of adoption contract.
• In re the Welfare of S.R.S.: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Published). Judge Klaphake opined that Minnesota courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify father's child support obligation.
• Baumgartner v. Baumgartner: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Chief Judge Toussaint found no abuse of discretion in disproportionate award of marital property and no error in valuation of marital property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As of September 2, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals will refer all family court appeals for mandatory mediation (with some exceptions for cases involving, for example, domestic violence). The program was designed to decrease costs and conflict for families involved in appellate cases while increasing litigant satisfaction.

Upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal, the Court will immediately refer litigants to mediation. Mediators available to serve include a panel of 12 retired judges and/or experienced family law attorneys. Parties will pay the costs of the mediation on a sliding fee scale.

This pilot program was initiated three years ago as the result of a meeting between Judge Harriet Lansing and William Mitchell College of Law Vice Dean for Academic Programs Nancy Ver Steegh. Ver Steegh is known for her work in the area of family law and alternative dispute resolution, and serves as an Editor for the Family Law Professor Blog. The Chief Judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Edward Touissant, believes the program is here to stay, calling it a "win-win" situation.

A few other states have adopted similar programs, with a resolution rate as high as 76 percent. That's an impressive statistic, given the adversarial mindset of litigants - especially following a trial.

We've seen clients benefit from the trend toward resolving family disputes through mediation.   This new mandatory appellate mediation might just result in additional justification for working with a mediator in the very early stages of litigation and avoiding unnecessary fees, costs, time and emotion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link