Huerd v. Huerd (In re Marriage of Huerd)
| Decision Date | 03 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | A19-1579 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of: James Warren Huerd, petitioner, Appellant, v. Wanda Sue Huerd, Respondent. |
| 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Roseau County District Court
James W. Huerd, Warroad, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Wanda S. Huerd, Thief River Falls, Minnesota (pro se respondent)
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this marital dissolution dispute, appellant challenges the district court's judgment and decree after a contested evidentiary hearing for several reasons. First, appellant argues that the district court erred when it denied appellant's request to proceed by default without a hearing and when it denied appellant's motion to strike respondent's May 23, 2019 answer. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied both requests, we affirm that portion of the district court's decision. Second, appellant argues that the district court erred when it awarded respondent permanent spousal maintenance. Because the district court relied on a document not admitted into evidence and because the district court did not analyze the necessary statutory factors, we reverse the permanent spousal maintenance award and remand this issue for further proceedings. Third, appellant argues that the district court erred when it apportioned the marital debt. Because the division of debt is not supported by the record and because the district court did not analyze the necessary statutory factors, we reverse this decision and remand the division of marital debt for further proceedings.
Appellant James Warren Huerd (husband) and respondent Wanda Sue Huerd (wife) were married in 1977. They separated in 2019 and the case proceeded to an initial scheduling conference on June 25, 2019. The district court held a hearing on July 16, 2019, to address husband's motion to strike wife's answer. The district court proceeded directly to a final evidentiary hearing, with no intervening hearings and no pretrial conference. At the evidentiary hearing on September 20, 2019, the district court placed both parties under oath and examined the parties regarding the dissolution and division of the marital estate. Neither party moved the admission of any exhibits, and neither party presented any testimony other than their own testimony. The district court entered the final judgment and decree three days later, on September 23, 2019. Husband subsequently appealed, challenging the district court's decisions, including the denial of his motions to proceed bydefault without a hearing and to strike wife's answer, the imposition of permanent spousal maintenance, and the division of marital debt.
On April 24, 2019, wife was personally served with husband's petition for dissolution without children. On May 23, 2019, wife filed her answer and counterpetition with the court, but she did not then serve husband with this pleading. On May 29, 2019, the district court ordered that a scheduling conference be held on June 25, 2019. On June 16, 2019, husband filed a default scheduling request along with the necessary affidavits to proceed by default without a hearing. The district court did not issue an order specifically disposing of husband's default request prior to the June 25, 2019 scheduling conference. Husband learned of the May 23, 2019 answer and counterpetition at the June 25, 2019 hearing. The district court conducted the initial conference and issued a scheduling order, scheduling a one-day evidentiary hearing for September 20, 2019. The order sets no deadlines regarding meditation, discovery, or pretrial disclosures and schedules no hearings other than the September 20, 2019 final evidentiary hearing. In the scheduling order, the district court found that wife "appeared and is representing herself at this time."
On June 26, 2019, husband filed a motion to strike wife's answer and counterpetition because he had not been served within 30 days of service of his petition for dissolution. The affidavit filed in support of this motion referenced rule 12.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 2, 2019, husband filed an amended motion, requesting that the district court strike wife's answer and counterpetition pursuant to rule 12.06 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 7, 2019, husband was personallyserved with wife's May 23, 2019 answer and counterpetition. The district court held a hearing on husband's motion to strike on July 16, 2019, and denied the motion. In that order, the district court found that wife "appeared personally without counsel and opposed the motion." The district court further concluded that wife "has successfully served [husband] and is therefore no longer in default." The order also stated that the September 20, 2019 evidentiary hearing "will proceed as scheduled." This order sets no deadlines regarding discovery, mediation, or pretrial disclosures and schedules no hearings other than the September 20, 2019 final evidentiary hearing.
Both parties appeared for the evidentiary hearing on September 20, 2019. The district court did not admit any documentary evidence and did not receive any testimonial evidence other than the parties' own testimony.
In his original petition, husband claimed that his gross monthly income was $1,932.68 and that wife's was $0. Husband did not request any spousal maintenance and did not think it was appropriate to pay wife any spousal maintenance. Husband included no information about his or wife's monthly expenses. In her May 23, 2019 answer and counterpetition, wife disputed the income amounts and the facts and conclusions regarding spousal maintenance. Wife asserted that husband's gross monthly income was $4,417.68. In addition, wife claimed gross monthly income of $1,294.50 and a total of $618.40 in monthly expenses, although wife noted her claimed expenses did not include "food, gas, clothing, car maintenance, or any other monthly expenses." Wife's May 23, 2019 answer and counterpetition also included the factual allegation that husband "has the ability to pay[wife] $300 per month for spousal maintenance," and requested an award of spousal maintenance in an unspecified monthly amount.
Husband also filed a proposed default judgment and decree on June 16, 2019. In these proposed income findings, husband included a gross monthly income of $4,472.02 for him and an amount of $1,294.50 for wife. These amounts are nearly identical to those included in wife's May 23, 2019 answer and counterpetition. The proposed findings under spousal maintenance include the standard, statewide form language that "Petitioner and Respondent can each pay their own living expenses and do not need spousal maintenance at this time, or in the future."1 The proposed order includes no information regarding either party's monthly expenses and would not obligate husband to pay wife any spousal maintenance of any kind.
During the evidentiary hearing, the district court questioned the parties regarding their expected income and expenses. Husband testified consistent with wife's May 23,2019 answer and counterpetition and consistent with his proposed default judgment and decree, stating that he receives a total of $4,472.02 in gross monthly income. Wife testified that she receives $1,294.50 in gross monthly income. Contrary to the language in his proposed default judgment and decree, husband testified at the evidentiary hearing that he would accept an order requiring him to pay wife $250 per month, starting on November 1, 2019, until the parties' home is sold and $500 per month after the house is sold. Wife testified that she would prefer to receive monthly spousal maintenance payments of $300 now and $500 after the house is sold. Neither party discussed—and the district court did not inquire—whether they would agree to permanent spousal maintenance in this case and there is no evidence regarding the duration of spousal maintenance.
In addition, the district court asked many questions regarding the parties' expenses, personal property, and debts. When discussing wife's expenses with her, the record shows that the district court was reading from a document that listed wife's expenses. Husband argues on appeal that the district court had been reading from a document that wife filed on the day of the evidentiary hearing, titled "Answers and Counterpetition of Marriage." The transcript of the hearing reflects that husband had not seen this filing before the evidentiary hearing, asking the district court, "where is that stuff coming from that you're listing?" The district court instructed husband to "[j]ust wait" and proceeded to ask husband about several specific personal property items listed on the September 20, 2019 filing.2 This filing also listed wife's gross monthly income as $1,294.50 and included atotal of $1,280.91 in monthly expenses, nearly double the amount claimed in wife's May 23, 2019 answer and counterpetition. The district court did not formally admit the document as an exhibit and did not determine whether husband had any objections to the district court's reliance on the information in the document.
The district court filed an order three days later. In its September 23, 2019 order, the district court found that husband "[had] a gross income of $4,472.02 due to a Pension or Disability from work or military and Social Security Disability Income (SSDI)." The district court determined that wife "[had] a gross income of $1,294.50." The district court did not make any findings regarding the parties' monthly expenses, the marital standard of living, husband's ability to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial