 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moe v. Moe2/15/2005
Respondent former-husband sued appellant former-wife, alleging fraud and seeking as damages an interest in a parcel of land owned by appellant. The district court concluded that appellant had committed fraud and ordered the parcel sold and the proceeds divided between the parties. Appellant now argues that (1) the record does not support several of the district court's findings; and (2) the district court misapplied the law of damages, compensating respondent in excess of his out-of-pocket costs. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant and respondent were married in 1981. In September 1995, after agreeing to dissolve their marriage, the parties executed and filed a marital termination agreement that divided their marital assets. Respondent retained counsel; appellant did not. The agreement awarded appellant legal title to the "forty-acre parcel" and awarded respondent the "Lakewood parcel" and a mobile home. Respondent immediately conveyed his interest in the forty-acre parcel to appellant.
A short time later, the parties reconciled and resumed living together on the Lakewood parcel, where they had resided during the marriage. In late October 1995 at a meeting with two attorneys shortly after the death of appellant's adult son, respondent heard one attorney advise appellant that the divorce could be undone. In early November, appellant received a copy of the final divorce decree mailed to her at her father's home. Respondent's attorney drafted a letter to respondent dated November 2, 1995, attached the final divorce decree, and mailed it to respondent at the Lakewood property. Respondent testified that he never saw the letter. Shortly after the Christmas following the death, respondent asked appellant about the dissolution papers. Appellant told respondent that "she had burned them." She then stated that "everything had been taken care of." Although judgment had been entered, respondent believed that the dissolution action had been terminated and that he and appellant remained married.
The parties' relationship continued as if they were married. In 1996, the parties moved onto the forty-acre parcel and began improving the property. Because neither the divorce decree nor the accompanying deed was recorded until 2001, property tax statements continued to show appellant and respondent as co-owners of the forty-acre parcel. In July 1997, the parties sold the Lakewood parcel, executing the deed as husband and wife. Respondent testified that he used the $19,000 in proceeds from the sale of the Lakewood parcel to improve the forty-acre parcel, contributing at least $14,258. At the time of trial, the forty-acre parcel with improvements was valued at $58,260.
The parties filed joint income tax returns representing that they were married for the 1997, 1998, and 1999 tax years. And appellant never told her neighbors or respondent's co-worker that she and respondent had divorced. The parties lived together until mid-2000 when respondent decided to initiate dissolution proceedings. Appellant then informed him that their marriage had already been dissolved.
Respondent sued appellant, alleging fraud and unjust enrichment. Respondent sought a decree awarding him the forty-acre parcel. Respondent alleged that appellant misrepresented that their dissolution had been cancelled, causing him to sell his property (the Lakewood parcel) and use the proceeds to improve appellant's property (the forty-acre parcel). As a result of the fraud, respondent alleged, he was left with no land. The matter proceeded to trial, after which the district court concluded that appellant fraudulently misrepresented that the dissolution had been terminated. The district court ordered th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|