Opinion
A23-1954
07-19-2024
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer, petitioner, Appellant, v. Robbie Michael Kremer, Respondent, County of Nobles, Intervenor.
Nobles County District Court File No. 53-FA-10-425
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Harris, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.[*]
ORDER OPINION
Matthew E. Johnson, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Michelle Beth Kremer appeals from the district court's October 25, 2023 order terminating Robbie Michael Kremer's obligation to pay permanent spousal maintenance. We conclude that Michelle's arguments are foreclosed by prior orders of the district court, one of which was affirmed on a prior appeal and the other of which was not appealed. Therefore, we affirm.
2. To provide context for this appeal, we will recite the relevant events in the procedural history of the case, which is extensive. Robbie and Michelle were married in 2001. Michelle petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in April 2010. In October 2011, the district court granted joint legal custody to both parties and sole physical custody to Michelle. In January 2012, the district court dissolved the marriage. On Robbie's appeal from the district court's custody order, this court affirmed. Kremer v. Kremer, 827 N.W.2d 454, 457-63 (Minn.App. 2013) (Kremer I), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2013).
3. The district court filed its judgment and decree in May 2015. The district court ordered Robbie to pay Michelle $750,000 "as and for equitable division of marital property." Robbie's obligation to make the $750,000 payment was secured by a lien on the marital homestead. In addition, the district court ordered Robbie to pay Michelle permanent spousal maintenance in the amount of $862 per month, to begin on May 1, 2015, and to continue "until modified by the court."
4. On Robbie's appeal from the judgment and decree, this court concluded, among other things, that the district court erred in determining the amount of spousal maintenance by not making findings concerning Michelle's ability to earn investment income on her $750,000 property award. Kremer v. Kremer, 889 N.W.2d 41, 54-55 (Minn.App. 2017) (Kremer II) (subsequent history omitted). Accordingly, we remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the amount of spousal maintenance. Id. at 55. The supreme court granted review with respect to a different issue but did not review this court's opinion with respect to spousal maintenance. Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617, 621 (Minn. 2018) (Kremer III).
5. After the supreme court issued its opinion, the district court reconsidered the amount of permanent spousal maintenance. Both parties chose to rest on the existing factual record, without introducing any new evidence. In November 2018, the district court filed an order with additional findings concerning Michelle's ability to earn investment income on her $750,000 property award. Specifically, the district court found that, if Michelle were to receive the previously ordered payment of $750,000, she could invest it and earn interest that would "comfortably exceed her modest living expenses." Accordingly, the district court reasoned that, if Michelle were to receive the $750,000 payment, "there would be no basis or justification for a permanent spousal maintenance award." But the district court noted that Robbie had not yet made the $750,000 payment and had resisted doing so. In consideration of that reality, the district court found that, until the payment was made, permanent spousal maintenance in the amount of $862 per month was still appropriate. The district court concluded by amending the judgment and decree to provide as follows:
[D]ue to the uncertainty of the necessity of this award in the future if [Robbie] actually compensates [Michelle] for the $750,000.00 in liquid assets awarded to her in this Judgment and Decree, the Court expressly leaves this award open for later modification at the request of the [Robbie] if and when he satisfies the $750,000.00 cash award to [Michelle]. If [Robbie] presents credible evidence that he has in fact met this obligation, the Court will order the permanent maintenance award to be discontinued. (First emphasis in original; second emphasis added.)
Neither party appealed from the district court's November 2018 order.
6. In October 2022, Robbie sold the marital homestead for $775,000. The settlement statement shows that, at the closing, $750,000 of the sale proceeds were paid to Michelle to satisfy Robbie's judgment debt and the lien imposed by the judgment and decree. The district court record also reflects that, shortly before the closing, Michelle agreed to pay Robbie's former attorney $70,000 to satisfy an attorney lien that had been placed on the property.
7. One day after the closing on the sale of the marital homestead, Robbie moved for a declaration that the marital lien had been satisfied and that Michelle "has no grounds to claim reimbursement by [Robbie] for her payment" to his former attorney. In February 2023, the district court filed a five-page order and memorandum in which it granted Robbie's motion in its entirety. The district court reasoned that Michelle is not entitled to interest on the judgment debt secured by the lien and that Robbie had fully paid the $750,000 judgment debt. The district court also reasoned that Michelle is not entitled to reimbursement of her payment to Robbie's former attorney on the grounds that Robbie's debt to his former attorney had been discharged in bankruptcy and that Michelle was not obligated to make the payment but did so in her own self-interest. Michelle appealed. This court affirmed the district court's February 2023 order, and the supreme court denied Michelle's petition for review. Kremer v. Kremer, No. A23-0553, 2024 WL 20195 (Minn.App. Jan. 2, 2024) (Kremer IV), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2024).
8. In June 2023, Robbie moved to terminate his obligation to pay permanent spousal maintenance on the ground that he had satisfied his obligation to pay Michelle $750,000 to complete the division of marital property, thereby triggering the condition identified in the district court's November 2018 order. In October 2023, the district court filed an order in which it granted Robbie's motion. The district court attached a short, one-paragraph memorandum, which states: "The Court is bound by the plain language of the order dated November 1, 2018, which provides that 'If [Robbie] presents credible evidence that he has in fact met this obligation . . . the Court will order the permanent maintenance award to be discontinued.'"
9. Michelle appeals. The sole argument in her appellate brief is that the district court erred by terminating Robbie's spousal-maintenance obligation on the ground that Robbie has not fulfilled the obligation identified in the district court's November 2018 order. Michelle asserts that, upon Robbie's sale of the marital homestead, she received "most of the sales price." She further asserts that Robbie "has yet to give the full $750,000" to her and that she "has yet to receive in full the $750,000 award" on the ground that she used some of the funds she received at the closing to pay Robbie's former attorney. In response, Robbie argues that he has fully paid off the marital lien and that Michelle should not be allowed to relitigate matters that have been decided.
10. The question whether Robbie has satisfied the $750,000 judgment debt and marital lien was resolved by the district court's February 2023 order, which is not the order from which this appeal is taken. In the February 2023 order, the district court determined that Robbie had fully paid the $750,000 judgment debt, and the district court granted Robbie's motion for a declaration that the marital lien had been satisfied and that Michelle "has no grounds to claim reimbursement by [Robbie] for her payment" to his former attorney. This court affirmed the district court's February 2023 order. See Kremer IV, 2024 WL 20195, *2-3. Michelle may not relitigate issues that were decided in a prior order that was affirmed in a prior appeal. See Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn. 1994) (stating that "principles of res judicata apply to dissolution proceedings").
11. At oral argument, Michelle challenged the district court's November 2018 order, in which the district court determined that, if and when Robbie satisfied his obligation to pay Michelle $750,000, his obligation to pay permanent maintenance award would be discontinued. That decision was made five years before the decision that is now on appeal. Michelle did not pursue an appeal from the November 2018 order. Again, Michelle may not relitigate the November 2018 order in this appeal. See id.
12. At oral argument, Michelle referred to various other issues that had arisen in prior stages in the long history of this case. None of those issues were presented to the district court in the motion that Robbie filed in October 2023, none were decided by the district court's February 2023 order, and none were argued in Michelle's appellate brief. Accordingly, we do not consider them in this appeal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.