Gaughan v. Gaughan
| Decision Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | A19-0948 |
| Parties | In re the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Gaughan, petitioner, Respondent, v. Patrick Michael Gaughan, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Affirmed
Washington County District Court
Karen I. Linder, Linder, Dittberner & Winter, Ltd., Edina, Minnesota (for respondent)
Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant-husband Patrick Gaughan challenges the district court's denial of his rule 60.02 motion to vacate the one-year extension of an order for protection (OFP) pursuant to the parties' written agreement authorizing respondent-wife Jennifer Gaughan to unilaterally seek and obtain the extension. Husband makes an amalgam of arguments in support of his claim that the extension was improper. Because husband, fully competent and represented by counsel, agreed to the entry of a one-year OFP without a finding of domestic abuse and further agreed that wife "shall have the right, at her sole discretion, to elect to extend the effective period of the [OFP] for one additional year," the district court did not err in extending the OFP consistent with the parties' agreement without the necessity of an additional hearing. We therefore affirm.
Husband and wife were married in 1992. They have six children, three of whom were minors when, on February 27, 2018, wife petitioned for an OFP under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2018) on behalf of herself and the parties' minor children. Wife also commenced a separate action for legal separation.
On March 30, 2018, with the advice of counsel, the parties stipulated to a one-year OFP without any finding of domestic abuse. The written stipulation provided that wife would have the temporary sole legal and physical custody of the minor children, and that either party could raise the issue of custody in the couple's legal-separation proceeding. It further provided that, by signing the stipulation, the parties waived their right to an evidentiary hearing regarding the OFP. Paragraph 23 of the stipulation specified the duration of the OFP, as follows:
This Order is effective for a period of 1 year from the date of this Order, or until modified by further court order; provided, however, that notwithstanding any provision of Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 to the contrary, [wife] shall have the right, at her sole discretion, to elect to extend the effective period of thisOrder for one additional year, upon the filing of an affidavit exercising said right. Upon the filing of an affidavit by [wife] exercising her right to extend the effective period of this Order for one additional year, this Court shall issue and file its order extending the effective period of this Order for one additional year.
On April 2, 2018, the district court issued an order adopting the terms of the parties' stipulation. On February 25, 2019, wife filed an affidavit requesting an extension of the OFP for an additional year under paragraph 23 of the stipulation. The district court granted wife's request and extended the OFP until April 1, 2020.
Husband moved the district court to vacate the order extending the OFP. The district court denied husband's motion.
This appeal followed.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied husband's motion for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02.
The sole issue identified in husband's initial brief is whether the district court erred by denying husband's rule 60.02 motion to vacate the order extending the OFP.
Under rule 60.02, a party may seek relief from a "final judgment . . . , order, or proceeding" for the following reasons:
Appellate courts review a district court's denial of rule 60.02 relief for abuse of discretion. Gams v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611, 620 (Minn. 2016). "A district court abuses its discretion when it acts under a misapprehension of the law . . . or when its factual findings are clearly erroneous." Id. (citations omitted). We view the record in the light most favorable to the district court's findings and will not reverse unless "we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotations omitted). We will not make credibility determinations or reconcile conflicting evidence. Aljubailah v. James, 903 N.W.2d 638, 643 (Minn. App. 2017).
Husband argues that the district court abused its discretion in two ways when it denied his rule 60.02 motion. He argues that it erred because it "failed to provide a hearing on [Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 subd.] 6a's legislatively-mandated pre-conditions for an extension of the OFP." Husband also argues that the court abused its discretion by denying his rule 60.02 motion because wife "engaged in post-OFP settlement agreement misconduct."
Paragraph 23 of the parties' stipulation effectively waived the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a, concerning extension of the stipulated OFP where the term of the OFP was not extended beyond the initial two-year period expressly authorized by Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(b).
Husband argues that we should reverse the district court's one-year extension of the OFP because the statute requires "application, notice, hearing and satisfaction of the statutorily-created criteria," before the OFP could be extended.
We begin with the fact of the parties' negotiated stipulation for a one-year OFP without any finding of domestic abuse. That stipulation was a settlement agreement. A settlement agreement "is contractual in nature." Voicestream Minn., Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc., 743 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Minn. 2008). "As a general rule, the enforcement of a settlement agreement requires a hearing if the issues are sharply conflicting and there are questions of fact for the fact finder to decide." Id. at 272. However, the district court has "the inherent power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous." Id. (quotations omitted). It will "read contract terms in the context of the entire contract and will not construe the terms so as to lead to a harsh and absurd result." Brookfield Trade Cent., Inc. v. Cty. of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 394 (Minn. 1998).
Parties may, by stipulation, "agree to incur certain obligations which the [district] court, acting under its statutory authority, is not empowered to impose." In re LaBelle's Tr., 223 N.W.2d 400, 401 (Minn. 1974). Courts may not, however, approve an action to which parties stipulate that is explicitly prohibited by statute. Leifur v. Leifur, 820 N.W.2d 40, 43 (Minn. App. 2012), review dismissed (Minn. Nov. 1, 2012). The Minnesota Supreme Court has made clear that when parties bargain for obligations that are not prohibited, those obligations may be honored and enforced by the district court. LaBelle's Tr., 223 N.W.2d at 411; see Anderson v. Anderson, 225 N.W.2d 837, 841 (Minn. 1975) (). In determining the enforceability of a stipulated agreement, we considerwhether parties to a stipulated agreement were represented by counsel. Anderson, 225 N.W.2d at 841.
The statute authorizes the district court to grant OFP relief for a period not to exceed two years. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(b). Here, the parties agreed to an OFP without any domestic-abuse finding for a period of one year, and they agreed that wife had the "right, at her sole discretion" to seek and obtain an extension of the OFP for "one additional year."
Relying on the precedent established in the cases discussed above, the district court determined that the parties' agreement dispensed with the need for a hearing under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a, in order to extend the stipulated OFP for the agreed-upon "one additional year." It correctly noted that, "[t]he burden of proof in a proceeding under Rule 60.02 is on the party seeking relief." City of Barnum v. Sabri, 657 N.W.2d 201, 205 (Minn. App. 2003).
The record supports the district court's conclusion that husband understood the meaning and potential ramifications of paragraph 23 of the stipulation that he and his attorney signed. That paragraph unambiguously provides that wife "shall have the right, at her sole discretion, to elect to extend the effective period of this Order for one additional year, upon the filing of an affidavit exercising said right." And the agreement provided an evident benefit to husband—the OFP was entered without any finding of domestic abuse. In obtaining the extension of the OFP, wife followed the procedure to which the parties agreed, and the overall period of the OFP—two years—was within the authority of the district court under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(b).
Husband asserts that the district court erred when it found that husband waived his right to notice and a hearing under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a, because "the paragraph speaks only for [wife] and does not state that [husband] waived his right to a hearing."
We review the district court's determination that husband waived his right to a hearing for clear error. In re Civil Commitment of Giem, 742 N.W2d 422, 432 (Minn. 2007). A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."...
To continue reading
Request your trial