Marriage of Roel v. Roel
1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4446, 406 N.W.2d 619 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An interest in property acquired during a marriage, such as a life estate, is presumed to be marital property subject to division, even if it merges with a pre-existing nonmarital interest in the same property. A court may award one spouse a portion of the other's nonmarital property to prevent unfair hardship, particularly when an award of maintenance is not feasible due to the obligor's limited income.
Facts:
- Thomas Roel and Mary Ann Roel married in 1956.
- In 1962, Thomas Roel's mother gifted him and his two siblings an equal remainder interest in the family farm, retaining a life estate for herself.
- In 1973, Thomas started a construction business that was successful for several years but later declined.
- In 1980, while Thomas and Mary Ann were married, Thomas and his siblings purchased their mother's life estate in the farm for $118,800.
- Four days later, the siblings sold the entire farm under a contract for deed for $440,000, from which they received annual payments.
- Until December 1985, Thomas commingled his share of the contract for deed payments with other marital income, using the funds for family expenses and investments.
- In 1985, upon his attorney's advice, Thomas segregated that year's contract payment into a separate account.
- At the time of their dissolution in 1986, both parties were 49 years old, had significant health problems restricting their employability, and neither held a permanent, full-time job.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Ann Roel and Thomas Roel initiated a dissolution of marriage proceeding in a Minnesota trial court.
- The trial court issued a dissolution decree that classified a portion of payments from a contract for deed as marital property, denied spousal maintenance to either party, and awarded Mary Ann Roel 40% of Thomas Roel's nonmarital property to prevent 'unfair hardship'.
- Mary Ann Roel appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying her permanent maintenance.
- Thomas Roel, as respondent, also challenged the trial court's judgment, arguing the court erred by treating any portion of the contract for deed proceeds as marital property.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by (1) awarding a spouse a portion of the other's nonmarital property to prevent unfair hardship instead of permanent spousal maintenance, and (2) characterizing proceeds from a contract for deed as partially marital property where the underlying real estate consisted of a nonmarital gifted remainder interest and a life estate purchased during the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Randall, J.
No. The trial court did not err. First, the court acted within its discretion by denying permanent maintenance and instead awarding Mary Ann a share of Tom's nonmarital property. This award was justified to prevent unfair hardship, given the 30-year length of the marriage, Mary Ann's limited employability and health problems, and Tom's insufficient income to support a maintenance award. Second, the court correctly concluded that a portion of the contract for deed proceeds was marital property. Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital. Tom acquired his share of the life estate during the marriage, and he failed to trace the funds used for its purchase to a nonmarital source. Therefore, the appreciation and proceeds attributable to the purchased life estate were correctly classified as marital and subject to division.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Lansing, J.
No as to the first issue, but Yes as to the second. The award of nonmarital property to Mary Ann to prevent unfair hardship was proper. However, the trial court erred in classifying any part of the contract-for-deed payments as marital. The money is clearly traceable to Tom's nonmarital assets, as he exchanged his nonmarital interest in the family farmland for the contract payments. The debt incurred to purchase the mother's life estate was satisfied by the proceeds from the sale of the nonmarital asset itself. The case should be remanded to reclassify the property as entirely nonmarital and to reconsider the division and a potential reservation of spousal maintenance for the future.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the application of the 'tracing' doctrine in marital property law. It establishes that when a nonmarital asset is combined with an interest acquired during the marriage, the portion acquired during the marriage is presumptively marital unless the party claiming it as nonmarital can trace the acquisition to a nonmarital source. The decision also reinforces the court's equitable power under statute to invade one spouse's nonmarital property to prevent 'unfair hardship' for the other spouse. This serves as a critical safety valve in cases involving long-term marriages where one spouse has significantly lower earning potential and traditional maintenance is not a viable option.
