Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appeal

jurisdictionattorneyequityappealhearing

Related Cases

In re Marriage of Hutchinson, 974 N.W.2d 466

Facts

Susan and Greg Hutchinson were married in 1990 and went through a dissolution of marriage proceeding in 2010. During the proceedings, Greg failed to disclose his GE retirement pension, which vested in 2007. Susan discovered the pension nearly five years later when Greg informed her of his retirement. Susan filed a petition to modify the dissolution decree, claiming fraud due to Greg's nondisclosure of the pension. The district court initially found in favor of Susan, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

Throughout months of negotiation within the dissolution of marriage proceeding, Robert (Greg) failed to disclose his GE retirement pension. Susan did not discover this omission until nearly five years later.

Issue

Whether the ex-wife could modify the dissolution decree based on the ex-husband's failure to disclose his retirement pension, and whether this constituted intrinsic or extrinsic fraud.

The resolution of this case turns on whether Susan can modify the dissolution decree with an independent action in equity.

Rule

In Iowa, property divisions in a dissolution decree are not subject to modification unless there is a finding of extrinsic fraud, duress, coercion, mistake, or other grounds justifying a change. Intrinsic fraud occurs within the issues submitted to and decided by the court, while extrinsic fraud prevents a fair submission of the controversy.

In order for the court to conduct a proper analysis of the property subject to an equitable division, it is imperative for the parties to fully and fairly disclose their financial status as required by Iowa Code section 598.13.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the fraud involved in the nondisclosure of the pension. It concluded that Greg's failure to disclose the pension was intrinsic fraud because it occurred within the framework of the dissolution proceedings. The court also determined that Susan could have discovered the pension with reasonable diligence within one year after the decree, as it was referenced in a document she received prior to signing the stipulation.

We agree with the court of appeals majority and authority from other jurisdictions that these facts show intrinsic fraud. Here, the stipulation dividing property, drafted by Susan's attorney, was presented in a hearing to a court tasked with equitably dividing assets, which incorporated the stipulation into a judgment.

Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the ex-wife could not pursue an action to modify the property division due to intrinsic fraud. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's findings.

Decision of Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part; District Court judgment reversed and case remanded with instructions.

Who won?

Greg Hutchinson prevailed in the case because the court determined that the fraud was intrinsic and did not meet the standard for modification of the property division.

Greg argues that the alleged fraud was intrinsic.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 42 Media L. Rep. 1033

Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706, 182 P.3d 579, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5649, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6779

Valentine v. Watters, 896 So.2d 385

Johnson v. Norris, 537 F.3d 840

In re Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003, 4 N.Y.3d 665, 830 N.E.2d 1118, 797 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 03582