Kornberg v. Kornberg, C5-94-1008

• Decision Date: 13 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. C5-94-1008,C5-94-1008
• Citation: 525 N.W.2d 14
• Parties: In re the Marriage of Lela Diane KORNBERG, a/k/a Lila Diane Kornberg, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Harvey KORNBERG, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 14

525 N.W.2d 14

In re the Marriage of Lela Diane KORNBERG, a/k/a Lila Diane

Kornberg, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Harvey KORNBERG, Respondent.

No. C5-94-1008.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Dec. 13, 1994.

Review Granted March 14, 1995.

Syllabus by the Court

If a district court judge grants a motion to reopen a marital dissolution judgment and decree and then retires, a successor district court judge has the authority to decide a motion for amended findings. The successor judge, in his or her discretion, should be reluctant to reverse the prior decision but may do so if the successor judge believes the prior decision is clearly erroneous or unjust, or when a substantial change occurs in the essential facts, the evidence, or the applicable law. The successor judge's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

Ronald S. Goldser, Robert J. Levy, Zimmerman Reed, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Jerrold F. Bergfalk, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by LANSING, P.J., and KLAPHAKE and MANSUR, JJ.

OPINION

MARTIN J. MANSUR, Judge. ^*

Appellant challenges the district court judge's authority to overrule a prior district court judge's decision granting her motion to reopen the parties' marital dissolution judgment and decree following the prior judge's retirement. If the successor district court judge did have such authority, appellant argues the successor judge erred in refusing to reopen the judgment and decree. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Lela Diane Kornberg and respondent Harvey Kornberg were married in 1958. The parties were divorced by judgment and decree dated October 1, 1992. Substantial assets were accumulated by the parties during their marriage. The largest single asset was "Atrium on Rae," an apartment complex valued at approximately $1.1 million. The Atrium complex is located in Canada where appellant also resides.

A detailed stipulation was agreed to by the parties after lengthy settlement negotiations. During the negotiations, both parties were represented by competent attorneys and financial advisors in the United States and in Canada. The stipulation, which was incorporated into the judgment and decree, provided that after appellant received spousal maintenance for a five-month period, a corporation called "Newco" would be created to pay appellant dividends. Appellant also agreed to waive all future spousal maintenance and waive her right to seek a modification.

Appellant transferred her interest in the Atrium complex to Newco in return for 1,100 fixed preference shares of stock. Appellant was to receive a monthly dividend of $6.67 (Canadian) for each share or $7,337 per month (Canadian). Respondent retained the common stock. The dividends were not to be labeled as spousal maintenance to avoid severe Canadian tax consequences. In the event of a default by Newco, including the failure of Newco to make the above-described dividend payments, appellant has the right to receive all of the common shares of Newco stock.

No payments have ever been made by Newco to appellant. Although appellant has the option to assume ownership of the Atrium complex, by taking control of the common stock, she does not desire to do so. Since Newco was not a party to the dissolution action, the district court does not have the power to require Newco to pay dividends for appellant's support. Therefore, appellant moved the district court to vacate the judgment and decree on the grounds that the parties' stipulation was the product of mistake or fraud and that it lacked consideration.

The motion was heard by Judge Eugene Farrell, a district court judge in Hennepin County. Judge Farrell found that appellant's waiver of spousal maintenance and the property division resulted from a mistake which prevented an effective meeting of the minds. Judge Farrell therefore concluded that the provisions in the judgment and decree were void and he granted appellant's motion to reopen the judgement and decree. Since Judge Farrell was set to soon retire, he set the matter upon the trial calendar before Judge Franklin Knoll. Judge Knoll is also a district court judge in Hennepin County.

Subsequent to Judge Farrell's retirement, respondent moved for amended findings before Judge Knoll. Judge Knoll decided the motion after determining that respondent's motion for amended findings was preferable over an immediate challenge to Judge Farrell's findings on appeal. Judge Knoll concluded that appellant was not induced by fraud or mistake to enter the stipulation. Therefore, Judge Knoll granted respondent's motion for amended findings which effectively reversed Judge Farrell's prior order reopening the judgement and decree. This appeal followed.

ISSUES

1. Did the successor district court judge err in ruling upon respondent's motion for amended findings, where a now retired district court judge granted appellant's motion to reopen the parties' marital dissolution judgment and decree?

2. Did the successor district court judge err in refusing to reopen the judgement and decree?

ANALYSIS

1. Review of Prior District Court Decision

A district court judge's authority to review another district court judge's decision to vacate a marital dissolution judgment and decree is not addressed directly by the rules of civil procedure or Minnesota case law. An analogous situation, however, is addressed in Minn.R.Civ.P. 63.01 which provides:

If by reason of death, sickness, or other disability a judge before whom an action has been tried is unable to perform judicial duties after a verdict is returned or findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed, any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the court in which the action was tried may perform those duties; but if such other judge is satisfied that the duties cannot be performed because that judge did not preside at the trial or for any other reason, that judge may exercise discretion to grant a new trial.

(Emphasis added.)

Whether a judge's retirement is an "other disability" is not clear. We need not decide this issue, however, as rule 63.01 contemplates that a trial has been held. In this case, no trial was held. Nevertheless, rule 63.01 is instructive in illustrating that in certain circumstances, one district court judge does have authority to review the findings of another district court judge.

Had Judge Farrell not retired, it is clear that respondent's motion for amended findings would have been proper. This court recently stated:

While it is not mandatory that the parties bring post-trial motions to permit the trial court to review, reconsider and clarify its findings and conclusions, it is desirable to do so, and this court has consistently encouraged the practice. * * * A post-trial motion provides the trial court an opportunity to review the evidence and, if necessary, to rectify errors or omissions alleged by the parties. This procedure, properly employed, preserves the economic and emotional resources of both parties, and preserves the resources of the judicial system as well.

Bliss v. Bliss, 493 N.W.2d 583, 589-90 (Minn.App.1992) (citations omitted) (footnote omitted), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 12, 1993). Thus, we must decide whether a party should be precluded from making such a motion for amended findings where the prior judge has retired or is otherwise unavailable.

Our resolution of this issue involves application of the "law of the case" doctrine. "The 'law of the case' doctrine commonly applies to issues decided in earlier stages of the same case." In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn.1990). In particular, the doctrine provides that

when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.

Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)).

The law of the case doctrine "ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings." Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740, 744 n. 1 (Minn.1994). The doctrine, however, has also been invoked in many federal and state jurisdictions where one judge has reviewed the decision of another judge of the same court. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[T]he law-of-the-case doctrine "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power." A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2178, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (quoting Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 740, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912)) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

The law of the case doctrine is "a rule of practice, not of substantive law." Braunwarth v. Control Data Corp., 483 N.W.2d 476, 476 n. 1 (Minn.1992). Therefore, the doctrine does not serve as a substantive limitation to a court's power. It is a flexible doctrine that varies within the context of its application. United States v. Todd, 920 F.2d 399, 403 n. 1 (6th Cir.1990). "Between coordinate courts, a court is not deprived of the power to revisit a previously decided issue, so long as the case remains within its jurisdiction." Id.; see also Loo, 520 N.W.2d at 744 (district court may decide motion which is within the court's "continuing jurisdiction"). The law of the case doctrine "is a discretionary tool available to a court in order to promote judicial efficiency." Todd, 920 F.2d at 403.

Many state courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Broyles v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., 695 P.2d 1136, 1144 (Colo.1985); Certain N.E. Annexation Area Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne, 622 N.E.2d...