Summary Joint Dissolution Set Aside: 6 Years Later

The summary dissolution statutes were established to make it easier for couples with little money to dissolve their marriage. There are bright line restrictions on couples who may use this procedure. Among those restrictions are that the parties cannot own real property, there can be no maintenance required of either spouse and the fmv of all assets, less the debts secured by those assets, must be less than $25,000. §40-4-130 M.C.A.

In this case, a couple filed a joint petition for summary dissolution in 2002. However, they owned real estate, they agreed that the wife would receive maintenance, and the net fmv of their assets exceeded $25,000. Perhaps they did not read the brochure published by the Attorney General.

After the decree had been amended four times by mutual consent, wife filed another motion to amend the decree in 2007. This time the husband hired a lawyer, who filed a motion to set aside the original decree and all amended decrees filed thereafter (except as to the status of the marriage). The trial court granted the motion, then conducted a contested trial in 2008. The court rendered an award which was significantly different from the original agreement that the parties had filed with their original petition. Husband appealed the lifetime maintenance award to his wife.

The Supreme Court affirmed by memorandum opinion.

§ 40-4-135 (2) M.C.A. specifically authorized the district court to set aside final decrees except as to the status of the marriage because at the time of the filing of the original petition the parties violated the bright line restrictions of §40-4-130. So there was no question that the trial court should set aside the decrees.

Given the number of individuals representing themselves in these matters, it is likely there are other fatally flawed decrees out there. It is noteworthy that the trial court considered the dramatically changed circumstances of the parties at the time of the 2008 trial (both had become disabled). So these people ended their marriage in 2002, but the ultimate economic distributions were based on circumstances 6 years later.

In Re Marriage of Webb, 2012 MT 2014N.