Court-Ordered Grandparent Visitation Upheld in Minnesota

        The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently upheld an order awarding generous visitation to grandparents in A.B. v. Verzhbitskaya, A14-1656, (Minn. Ct. App.  June 15, 2015).  The Court held that a visitation schedule that provided the grandparents with one weekend and one weekday afternoon a month as well a weekly school visits, a nine-day summer visit, and daytime visits on both Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve was not excessive.

 

Minnesota Statute 257C.08, subd. 1 (2014) provides that, when a parent of a minor child is deceased, the court may order reasonable visitation by the deceased parent’s parents (the child’s grandparents) if the visitation is in the best interests of the child and the visitation will not interfere with the relationship between the surviving parent and the child, and the court is to consider the amount of contact with the child and his/her grandparents before the parent’s death.  The courts have held that the grandparents bear the burden of proof that their visitation will not interfere with the parent/child relationship.

 

Understanding the Case

 

In this case, the child had turned eleven shortly after the father’s death, and there was no dispute that the visitation with the grandparents was in the best interest in the child.  In fact, there was testimony that a school counselor had encouraged the grandparents to visit the child at school during lunchtime.

 

Before the father’s death, the mother had sole physical and legal custody, and the father had parenting time on alternating weekends and Wednesday overnights.  The grandparents testified that they frequently saw their grandchild during their son’s visitation time.

 

The Court’s Decision

 

The Minnesota Court of Appeals first held that the amount of visitation time was not excessive.  It noted that the amount of time was significantly less than the amount of parenting time that the father had enjoyed when he was alive and it was consistent with the amount of contact that the grandparents had with their grandchild during the father’s lifetime.

 

The appeals court also found that the grandparents had met the burden of proof that their visitation would not interfere with the mother’s relationship with her child.  Although the mother had cultural concerns that the grandparents were interfering with her decision to raise her child in the Russian Orthodox Church and had taken the child to Catholic church, the court found that the grandparents had provided credible testimony that they would accommodate the mother’s concerns and they would no longer take the child to Catholic church if they had visitation.

 

The court completely disregarded the mother’s claims that the grandparents had interfered with her legal rights to her ex-husband’s estate, stating that those financial concerns were irrelevant to the parent/child relationship.  Thus, it is important that any claims of interference by grandparents focus on the relationship between the parent and child and not on financial issues between the parent and the grandparents.

 

Also rejected was the mother’s argument that other family members be barred from assisting in dropping the child off and picking the child up.  The court found the argument was forfeited because the mother did not provide any legal authority to bar others from facilitating the transfers of the child.

 

The court did reverse the district court’s decision awarding visitation to relatives other than the grandparents, such as the child’s aunt.  The court held that the statute limits visitation to grandparents, so there was no legal basis to extend independent visitation to aunts and other family members.  The court did note that the grandparents did have the right to allow other relatives to join with them in their visitation time.
Do you have questions about a family law issue, including visitation, support or custody? Be sure to contact an experienced Minnesota family law attorney for tailored guidance and counsel.

Family Law – Interpreting Antenuptial Agreements in Minnesota

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently addressed antenuptial agreements in Peterson v. Deeb, A13-2259 (Apr. 27, 2015).  As opposed to the more well-known “prenuptial agreement,” antenuptial agreements are made between partners after they are already married. The details agreed to in the contract are typically the same as those in prenuptial agreements, including property division, support, and similar matter.

 

Minnesota courts have long recognized antenuptial agreements, which change the statutory provisions for dividing both marital and nonmarital property when marriages are dissolved. Minnesota Statute Section 519.11 codifies the state law on antenuptial agreements.  Agreements are enforceable if the parties provide each other with a full and fair disclosure of their assets and income and the parties have the opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel of their own choice.  When these two requirements are met, the party who challenges the agreement has the burden of proof to show that the agreement was invalid.

 

New MN Family Law Case

 

In this case, the wife had been the sole owner of the parties’ home before the marriage; her equity was $75,000.  There was no dispute that the parties disclosed all of their assets and were represented separately by independent counsel throughout the negotiations and drafting of the agreement.  Under the terms of the agreement, the wife retained her $75,000 nonmarital interest in the home, but the parties agreed that any future increase in value would be considered marital property.  Thus, within 30 days after the marriage ended, the homestead was to be transferred into joint tenancy, with both parties as obligors of the mortgage.

 

After the antenuptial agreement was signed, the parties refinanced the homestead and used that money to purchase a cabin.  The district court found that the parties’ equity in the homestead, including both marital and nonmarital assets, had been eliminated by both the refinancing and by a decline in market value.  Thus, the district court found that selling the parties’ cabin and other real property would enable them to pay each for their nonmarital contributions to the purchase of these assets.  However, the district court awarded the wife $75,000, her interest in the homestead protected in the antenuptial agreement, and the husband was awarded $15,417 for his nonmarital contribution.

 

Points of Contention

 

In this case, the issue was the interpretation of the agreement, not the validity of the antenuptial agreement itself. The district court rejected the husband’s argument that the wife’s nonmarital interest of $75,000 was eliminated when the parties refinanced the homestead and its value decreased.  The Court of Appeal upheld the district court ruling.

 

In reviewing that lower court decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the purpose of contract interpretation is “to give effect to the parties’ intent,” and that a court should “avoid any interpretation that would make a contractual provision meaningless.” The Court of Appeals found that the “overriding purpose and intent of the parties” was to protect each party’s nonmarital party in the event the marriage was dissolved, including both the wife’s $75,000 in equity and the husband’s separate bank account.  The agreement itself did not indicate that purchasing other assets with non marital funds or commingling marital and nonmarital property would result in the marital property being eliminated.

 

The district court held (and the Appeals Court agreed) that the husband’s interpretation, which would eliminate the wife’s nonmarital asset, was “unconscionable” and unfair.   The Appeals Court also found that the district court’s enforcement of the agreement was fair and equitable.  When the parties married, their only real estate asset was the wife’s $75,000 in equity.  When they divorced, more than twelve years later, their equity had increased to $235,000, so the wife’s nonmarital asset ($75,000) was now only 31.9% of the parties’ total equity.  After the awards to each party of their nonmarital assets, 61.5% of the equity remained to be distributed as marital property.   Thus, the parties had obtained a significant increase in their joint assets during the course of the marriage.

 

Get Legal Help
This case illustrates the importance of obtaining legal counsel whenever an antenuptial agreement is considered.  For questions about these or any other Minnesota family law issues, be sure to seek out the aid of an experienced family law attorney for tailored guidance.