Shreve v. Shreve
| Decision Date | 10 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | A16-0663 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of: Michael R. Shreve, petitioner, Appellant, v. Chantal T. Shreve, 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 (2016).
Affirmed
Dakota County District Court
Kathleen M. Newman, Alexandra L. Michelson, Kathleen M. Newman + Associates, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Karim G. El-Ghazzawy, Basil S. El-Ghazzawy, El-Ghazzawy Law Offices, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant-husband challenges the denial of his motions to modify his permanent spousal-maintenance obligation and to compel discovery of respondent-wife's health and finances. Husband also appeals the award of conduct-based attorney fees to wife. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied husband's motions, we affirm.
Appellant Michael Shreve (Michael) and respondent Chantal Shreve (Chantal) were married for 13 years and had three children.1 In 2005, the district court entered judgment dissolving the marriage and incorporating the terms of the parties' stipulation resolving all disputes. The 2005 judgment provided that Michael, a physician, would pay Chantal permanent spousal maintenance of $7,125 per month "until [Chantal's] remarriage, or her death, whichever first occurs, or if there is a substantial change in circumstances which justify a modification." After cost-of-living adjustments, Michael's monthly maintenance obligation at the time relevant here was $8,289.13.
At the time of the 2005 judgment, Chantal was unemployed and received Social Security disability benefits because of a chronic autoimmune disorder, muscle myopathy. Chantal was also involved in a lawsuit against her private disability insurer for discontinuation of her benefits. The 2005 judgment required Chantal to "pursue litigation with her disability insurer with all due diligence," and regularly inform Michael of the status of the case. The judgment further provided that "the issue of spousal maintenance may be reviewed" after completion of litigation, and also stated that any funds Chantal received from the litigation "shall be deemed an asset that is subject to division."
In support of Chantal's claim against the disability insurer, Michael wrote a letter to the insurer, in which he stated that before her illness Chantal was "extremely active," but her illness had caused her to be "extremely limited in all aspects of her life, and [she] suffers setbacks every time she attempts to push her way past it." In May 2006, Chantal received a $111,000 lump-sum settlement payment from the insurer. In October 2006, the district court amended the 2005 judgment to reflect the parties' agreement that Michael would receive $34,666 of Chantal's settlement.
Letters from Chantal's treating physician and the Social Security Administration establish that Chantal continues to suffer from muscle myopathy and receive Social Security disability benefits. Chantal's monthly Social Security benefit is $2,539.80. According to Chantal's treating physician, Chantal's condition causes "rheumatologic symptoms" and disabling fatigue. Chantal's typical activities include maintaining the home, shopping for groceries and clothes, attending her children's sporting events, and volunteering at her daughter's elementary school. She also exercises, rides bike, and works in the garden, as recommended by her physician.
Chantal is currently in a "significant romantic relationship" with D.Y. Chantal and D.Y. own separate homes, are not married, and do not have a joint bank account, nor do they list each other as beneficiaries on retirement, investment accounts, or life insurance policies. Chantal's relationship with D.Y. includes a child, who was born in 2007. The child lives with Chantal, and D.Y. pays $1,500 in monthly child support. The district court found that there is some evidence that Chantal and D.Y. "hold themselves out as a married couple." In an affidavit, Michael stated that Chantal and D.Y. wear wedding rings and takevacations together. Also, in her written responses to Michael's discovery requests, Chantal admitted that D.Y. "resides at [her] home on a part-time basis." D.Y. has paid for repairs and improvements to Chantal's home, including a kitchen oven and replacement garage doors. In 2012 and 2015, D.Y. loaned Chantal $10,000 and $8,000, respectively, "towards payment of monthly living expenses." Chantal re-pays these loans at a rate of $150 per month without interest. Additionally, D.Y. pays for Chantal's meals when they dine out.
Since the 2005 judgment, Michael has filed five motions to modify maintenance and/or compel discovery relating to maintenance. In 2008, Michael moved to compel disclosure of Chantal's medical records so he could establish that her health had improved and argue for a reduction in his maintenance obligation. The district court denied the motion, concluding that requiring disclosure of Chantal's medical records was contrary to the rules of civil procedure. The district court approved Chantal's proposal that she provide Michael with an annual medical update via physician letters and copies of her Social Security disability benefit statements. The district court found this to be a "reasonable compromise."
In March 2009, Michael filed a maintenance modification motion, arguing Chantal's health had improved and Chantal was cohabitating with D.Y. Michael alleged that Chantal impeded his ability to prove changed circumstances by refusing to disclose or authorize release of her medical records. Chantal responded, but Michael voluntarily withdrew the motion before the district court filed an order.
In November 2010, Michael filed a second modification motion, reasserting the same arguments he raised in the 2009 motion. While that motion was pending, Michael filed a separate motion to compel discovery, requesting Chantal's medical records, an independent medical examination of Chantal, and discovery relating to Chantal's finances. At a hearing, Michael voluntarily withdrew his modification motion and pursued only the discovery motion. In April 2011, the district court denied Michael's request for medical discovery but granted his request for financial discovery.
After receiving financial discovery, Michael filed a third modification motion reasserting the same arguments he raised in 2009 and 2010. In August 2011, the district court denied Michael's motion, finding that he had not shown a substantial change in circumstances. The district court found that Chantal's physician letters and Social Security disability benefit statements established that Chantal continued to be disabled. The district court also found no substantial change in Chantal's economic well-being because D.Y. provided only "sporadic" financial support. Michael did not appeal.
Between 2011 and 2014, neither party filed any motions. In October 2015, Michael moved to modify maintenance, reasserting the same two grounds raised in his previous modification motions. Michael also moved to compel an independent medical examination of Chantal, a deposition of Chantal's treating physician, responses to interrogatories relating to Chantal's health and finances, and a vocational evaluation of Chantal. In response, Chantal requested conduct-based attorney fees. The district court denied Michael's motions, finding that he did not establish a substantial change in circumstancesrequiring maintenance modification. The district court also granted Chantal's motion, awarding her $14,430.50 in conduct-based attorney fees. Michael appeals.
The district court has wide discretion in granting or denying discovery requests, and this court will not disturb the district court's order absent a clear abuse of discretion. In re Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706, 711 (Minn. 2007). In reviewing the district court's order, this court is limited to "determining whether the district court made findings unsupported by the evidence or [improperly applied] the law." Id. Minnesota favors liberal discovery in civil proceedings, therefore, courts construe the discovery rules broadly. Id. Generally, "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party." Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(b).
The district court summarily denied Michael's discovery requests, relying on its April 2011 order. Michael argues that the district court abused its discretion because it denied his modification motion without allowing adequate discovery. We will examine Michael's discovery requests by grouping them into three categories.
When a party's physical or mental condition "is in controversy," the district court may order the party to submit to a physical or medical examination upon motion and good cause shown. Minn. R. Civ. P. 35.01. The "rule does not require that the party to be examined place his or her condition in controversy, but only that the condition be in controversy." Wills v. Red Lake Mun. Liquor Store, 350 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Minn. App.1984) (quotation omitted) (analyzing request for a vocational assessment under rule 35.01). "The nature and extent of the showing that must be made to demonstrate 'good cause' under the rule differs from case to case, turning largely upon the nature of the examination sought." Haynes v. Anderson, 304 Minn. 185, 189, 232 N.W.2d 196, 199 (1975). "The burden to show that the trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying an order for an adverse examination is an affirmative showing of prejudice." Higgins v. Lufi, 353 N.W.2d 150, 155-56 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn....
To continue reading
Request your trial