Kelly v. Kelly, Docket No. 48591
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48591 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 2022 |
| Citation | 518 P.3d 326 |
| Parties | Brandon Reyes KELLY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Brandi Leigh KELLY, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
David A. Johnson, PA, Idaho Falls, for Appellant. David A. Johnson argued.
Smith Woolf Anderson & Wilkinson, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for Respondent. Aaron J. Woolf argued.
This case arises from Brandi and Brandon Kelly's divorce proceedings and primarily concerns the interpretation and enforcement of the parties’ prenuptial agreement ("PNA"). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's decision in part and reverse in part.
Brandon and Brandi married on April 20, 2015, and had a child on June 9, 2015. Brandon filed for divorce on May 30, 2017. This Court previously addressed the parties’ disputes regarding child custody in Kelly v. Kelly , 165 Idaho 716, 451 P.3d 429 (2019). This appeal primarily concerns their disputes regarding the division of property and attorney fees.
At the time of the marriage, Brandon was a neurosurgeon and 50% owner in Idaho Neurosurgery
and Spine, PLLC ("INS"), the medical practice through which Brandon practices medicine. Dr. Clark Allen owned the other half of INS. At the time of marriage, Brandon was also one of three owners of Weyland-Yutani, LLC, ("Weyland"), an entity which owns the building where INS is located. During the parties’ marriage, one of Weyland's owners, Dr. Huneycutt, sold his interest in Weyland to Brandon and Dr. Allen for $200,000. Dr. Allen wrote Dr. Huneycutt a check for the $200,000. INS subsequently issued two K-1 distributions with profits from INS, each in the amount of $100,000, to reimburse Dr. Allen. As a result of the transaction, Brandon and Dr. Allen each own 50% of Weyland.
Prior to marriage, Brandon and Brandi entered into a prenuptial agreement ("the PNA") seeking to establish their rights to various items of property. Brandi and Brandon were represented by separate counsel during the negotiation and execution of the PNA. Before signing the PNA, Brandi reviewed Brandon's 2014 tax return. Brandi's attorney requested changes to the PNA's definitions of separate and community property, which were made. Brandi expressly waived her right to review other financial documentation concerning Brandon's assets and signed the PNA.
During the marriage, Brandon obtained 30 shares in Mountain View Hospital ("MVH") and transferred them to Virtucon, LLC, a business owned by Brandon. The shares cost $259,021.76. Brandon acquired the shares by borrowing $250,000 from D.L. Evans Bank and paying the balance with a distribution of profits from INS. Brandon signed a promissory note with D.L. Evans on April 20, 2016, and the loan was secured by a deed of trust on a home owned by Brandon. Brandi did not sign the promissory note.
During the pendency of the divorce action, and relevant to this appeal, Brandon filed four motions for partial summary judgment and Brandi filed two motions for partial summary judgment, each of which required interpretation of various provisions of the PNA.
Brandon also filed three contempt motions against Brandi, and Brandi filed one contempt motion against Brandon. We discuss the relevant portions of this motion practice in our analysis below.
The remaining property issues proceeded to trial. On July 19, 2018, the magistrate court entered its 69-page findings of fact and conclusions of law. Brandi then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the magistrate court denied. The magistrate court entered its judgment regarding property and debt, which Brandi timely appealed to the district court. On January 11, 2021, the district court issued a 50-page opinion, which reversed in part, affirmed in part, and vacated the magistrate court's contempt order and remanded for further proceedings. Brandi timely appealed the district court's intermediate appellate decision to this Court.
"[W]hen considering an appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment, this Court's standard of review is the same as that used by the trial court in passing on the motion." Pratt v. State Tax Com'n , 128 Idaho 883, 884, 920 P.2d 400, 401 (1996). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Lee v. Litster , 161 Idaho 546, 549, 388 P.3d 61, 64 (2017) (citation omitted). If the record reveals that there is no genuine issue of material fact, "then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review." Id. (citation omitted).
"When an appeal is initially taken to the district court from a decision by a magistrate, any subsequent review will be conducted independent of, but with due regard for, the decision of the district court." Pratt , 128 Idaho at 884, 920 P.2d at 401. When reviewing findings of facts and conclusions of law, this Court reviews the trial court's "record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings."
Pelayo v. Pelayo , 154 Idaho 855, 858, 303 P.3d 214, 217 (2013) (quoting Bailey v. Bailey , 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970, 973 (2012) ). "If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure." Nicholls v. Blaser , 102 Idaho 559, 561, 633 P.2d 1137, 1139 (1981).
In Brandon's first motion for partial summary judgment, he requested the magistrate court determine that the PNA was valid and enforceable. Brandi argued in opposition that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the nature of the property listed in schedule A of the PNA. The magistrate court issued a written order granting Brandon's motion for partial summary judgment in part, finding that the PNA was valid and binding because Brandi conceded the validity of the PNA and conceded that the PNA complied with Idaho Code section 32-917. The district court affirmed the magistrate court and determined that Brandi did not contest the validity of the PNA before the magistrate court.
On appeal to this Court, Brandi argues that the district court's decision should be reversed because the magistrate court's erroneous interpretation of various PNA provisions rendered the PNA both unenforceable and unconscionable. In opposition, Brandon argues that Brandi waived her argument on this issue because she did not contest the validity of the PNA before the magistrate court.
To preserve an issue for appeal, "[b]oth the issue and the party's position on the issue must be raised before the trial court." State v. Foeller , 168 Idaho 884, 891, 489 P.3d 795, 802 (2021). Brandi expressly stated to the magistrate court that she was not disputing the validity of the PNA and that the PNA "should control the disposition of property in this matter." The district court concluded this concession constituted a waiver of the issue on intermediate appeal. We agree and affirm the district court's decision on this issue.
In Brandon's fourth motion for partial summary judgment, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial