Marriage of Johnson

Mary and David W. Johnson were married on June 12, 1993. In May 2003, David filed a petition for dissolution and in June 2003 the parties entered a Settlement Agreement, which distributed the marital estate. Mary was served and defaulted. A decree of dissolution was entered on June 23, 2003, incorporating the provisions of the parties’ Settlement Agreement and finding it was not unconscionable. The decree stated that “there are no minor children of the parties hereto, and [Mary] is not pregnant at this time.” In 2007, Mary filed an action to set aside the decree, alleging that David had failed to disclose and list properties in the Settlement Agreement, and requesting that the marital estate be re-distributed. On November 25, 2008, in response to Mary’s motion for summary judgment, the district court entered an order setting aside the marital property division. The court concluded that David “knowingly failed to disclose material items of property and assets” and made affirmative misrepresentations to Mary to induce an uncontested judgment, which “constitute[d] extrinsic fraud sufficient to warrant setting aside of the resulting void property rights judgment as a matter of equity in order to fairly and properly account for, value, characterize, and equitably distribute the undisclosed property and assets in consideration of the parties’ prior settlement agreement.” The court ultimately determined that Mary was entitled to a total payment in the sum of $69,948.65 for the value of undisclosed assets, with interest thereon at 10 percent per annum from June 23, 2003. The court ordered each party to bear his or her own attorney fees and costs. The court gave brief mention to frozen embryos the parties had prepared for purposes of in vitro fertilization, stating that Mary testified that she should receive the embryos and that David testified that he objected to Mary receiving the embryos and requested they be donated to science. The court ordered that they be donated to science. On appeal, Mary challenged the District Court’s property distribution and assessment of attorney fees. David cross-appealed the court's grant of some of his pre-marital property. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Mary failed in various respects to carry her burden of proof on many property issues and the attendant issue of attorney fees. Further, the Court concluded the district court did not err in awarding some of David’s pre-marital property to Mary. With regard to the embryos, the Court concluded that the issue was not properly before the courts within this proceeding. The Court reversed the district court's order donating the embryos to science and left the issue to be addressed in the appropriate proceeding.