Tanascu v. Tanascu

• Decision Date: 12 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. DA 14–0221.,DA 14–0221.
• Citation: 338 P.3d 47,2014 MT 293,377 Mont. 1
• Parties: In re the Marriage of Linda TANASCU, n/k/a Linda Ludwig, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Gary TANASCU, Respondent and Appellee.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

377 Mont. 1
338 P.3d 47
2014 MT 293

In re the Marriage of Linda TANASCU, n/k/a Linda Ludwig, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
Gary TANASCU, Respondent and Appellee.

No. DA 14–0221.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Oct. 1, 2014.
Decided Nov. 12, 2014.

338 P.3d 48

For Appellant: Kevin S. Brown, Paoli & Brown, PC, Livingston, Montana.

For Appellee: Karl Knuchel, Attorney at Law, Livingston, Montana.

Opinion

Chief Justice MIKE McGRATH delivered the Opinion of the Court.

377 Mont. 2

¶ 1 Linda Tanascu (Ludwig) appeals from the District Court's order denying her motion for relief from the dissolution decree and property distribution, which was filed April 1, 2014. We affirm.

¶ 2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Linda's motion to modify the dissolution decree and property distribution.

BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The parties were married in 1980 and separated in 2012. Gary worked in law enforcement during most of the marriage and was entitled to a pension from his employer. Linda filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage and they exchanged preliminary financial disclosures. Both parties were represented by counsel and participated in a mediated settlement conference in November 2012. The District Court described the mediator as “an experienced long-time family law practitioner who also regularly serves as a mediator in family law and other types of cases.” After an exchange of settlement drafts the parties entered a written property settlement agreement in November 2012 and waived the exchange of final financial disclosures.

338 P.3d 49

¶ 4 The final settlement agreement acknowledges that each party provided declarations of income and expenses and that those documents complied with statutory requirements for preliminary and final financial disclosures. The settlement specified that Gary had a “defined benefit in a sheriff's retirement account” and that he was currently drawing benefits. The settlement provided that each party would assume various debts, and that Gary would retain his law enforcement pension. Linda expressly “waive[d] all claim” to Gary's retirement account except that the parties agreed that she would continue as the designated beneficiary of the retirement account for survivor benefits. The parties agreed that Linda would remain in the family home but that it would be sold and that Linda would receive the equity, estimated to be worth about $80,000. Other than the estimated value of the home, the settlement agreement did not set out any valuations of assets or debts. The settlement recited that “[i]nsofar as is legally permissible, the provisions of this agreement may not be modified by any court.”

377 Mont. 3

¶ 5 Linda notified the District Court that she and Gary had reached a full settlement, submitted the signed settlement agreement, and requested a hearing. On March 13, 2013, the District Court convened a hearing on the dissolution petition. Linda appeared at the hearing with her attorney, and while Gary did not appear personally or through counsel, he consented to entry of a decree of dissolution. Linda testified she was satisfied that there had been a full disclosure of “assets, liabilities, incomes and expenses” and that the property settlement agreement was fair and equitable. The District Court concluded the hearing with the oral finding that there was a settlement agreement reached by both parties with the assistance of counsel, and that all agreed that the agreement “is fair and equitable; it is not unconscionable.”

¶ 6 The District Court entered the decree of dissolution on March 8, 2013, finding that the parties had represented that they had disclosed all assets, liabilities, incomes and expenses, and that pursuant to § 40–4–254, MCA, there was good cause to waive the exchange of final disclosures. The District Court further found that the parties had entered a settlement agreement “which deals with the issues of property, debt distribution and all other related issues,” and that the agreement was fair, equitable and “acceptable to both parties.” The District Court found that the settlement agreement was not unconscionable and incorporated the settlement agreement as part of the decree. On March 8, 2013, Linda filed a notice of entry of the decree.

¶ 7 Almost a year later, in February 2014, Linda appeared with new counsel and sought relief from the final decree under § 40–4–208, MCA, and M.R. Civ. P. 60(b). Linda claimed that the property settlement she and Gary previously entered was unconscionable and that the District Court should modify the dissolution decree. Her contention, which she continues in this appeal, is that the District Court wrongfully failed to make findings as to the net value of the marital estate and consequently awarded Gary $1,721,641 while awarding her only $96,112. Linda's petition also complained of her inability to sell the parties' home and that...