Opinion
A20-1463
07-22-2021
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton, petitioner, Appellant, v. Megan Caroline Curran, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-17-1840
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Florey, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Kevin James Stanton (husband) and respondent Megan Caroline Curran (wife) divorced in October 2019. Two terms of the district court's judgment and decree dissolving the marriage required husband, who was set to receive a substantial inheritance, to disclose to wife certain information about distributions from the estate as he received them. Husband did not initially comply with the disclosure provisions and, in March 2020, the district court held husband in constructive civil contempt of court. The district court also ordered husband to pay conduct-based attorney fees to wife based on his post-decree conduct that unnecessarily contributed to the length and expense of the litigation. Moreover, the district court ordered husband's attorney to disclose to wife information about her interest-on-lawyer-trust-account (IOLTA) account showing that husband, as the attorney represented to the court, had deposited into the IOLTA account sufficient funds to cover the judgments against him in the event that his first appeal was unsuccessful.
The district court amended the contempt order in July 2020 in ways that do not affect the issues raised in this appeal.
Husband directly appealed the judgment and decree. Stanton v. Curran, No. A20-0211, 2021 WL 317227 (Minn. App. Feb. 1, 2021), review denied (Minn. Apr. 20, 2021). We affirmed on all issues that husband raised in the first appeal. Id. at *11.
2. In this appeal, husband argues that the district court erred by holding him in contempt and abused its discretion by ordering his attorney to make disclosures about her IOLTA account. We need not reach the merits of these arguments because both issues are moot. We may dismiss an issue as moot "if an event occurs that resolves the issue or renders it impossible to grant effective relief." Isaacs v. Am. Iron & Steel Co., 690 N.W.2d 373, 376 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Apr. 4, 2005).
3. The contempt issue is moot because husband and wife agreed, at oral argument before this court, that husband purged himself of contempt by making the disclosures required by the judgment and decree. Cf. Clement v. Clement, 204 N.W.2d 819, 819 (Minn. 1973) (holding that contemnor's appeal of contempt order was moot after he purged himself of the contempt).
4. The IOLTA-disclosure issue is moot because husband and wife agree that the district court, after this appeal was filed, struck that provision of its order. Because that portion of the order is no longer in effect, we cannot grant relief. See Isaacs, 690 N.W.2d at 376.
5. Husband also challenges the district court's award of conduct-based attorney fees. This issue is not moot, and we address the merits of husband's arguments.
6. The district court has the discretion to award conduct-based attorney fees when a party engages in conduct that unnecessarily contributes to the length or expense of the proceedings. Baertsch v. Baertsch, 886 N.W.2d 235, 238 (Minn. App. 2016). We review an award for attorney fees for an abuse of that discretion. Brodsky v. Brodsky, 733 N.W.2d 471, 476 (Minn. App. 2007).
7. The district court determined that conduct-based attorney fees were appropriate in this case because husband's failure to comply with the terms of the decree resulted in a significant volume of post-decree litigation. Moreover, the district court found that husband's post-decree pleadings and requests often had "no basis in law or fact," that husband's requests were "often untimely and frequently nonsensical," and that husband's attorney repeatedly made factual assertions in her memoranda that were not supported by evidence or affidavits.
8. Husband argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding conduct-based attorney fees because, husband asserts, wife filed more motions than he did and took duplicitous positions that also unnecessarily contributed to the length and expense of the proceedings. But we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's award. The district court found that wife made "appropriate requests" stemming from husband's failure to comply with the judgment and decree. The record supports the district court's determination. To the extent that wife changed her position on certain issues, we observe that the changes in position were reasonable considering the changing procedural posture of the case brought on by husband's failure to comply with the judgment and decree and husband's first appeal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's orders are 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.
Dated: July 22, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Lucinda E. Jesson