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.