Professor Geraldine Steen

Exam Time: 1:00 p.m.

Final exam: One of these two questions will be on the final exam. However, you should be prepared to answer both questions.

During the final exam, you may only consult unannotated family law statutes. Except for those statutes, the final exam is closed book. It will consist of two questions. You should prepare in advance for answering the two questions handed out to you. One of those two will be selected and you must answer that question from memory. You will not know which one will be selected until you are in the final exam.

In the alternative, you may treat either or both of these questions as a take-home exam. Should you decide to select this alternative, you may not take the final exam, but must complete the required two papers (made up from the two papers assigned earlier in the course and these two questions) . Should you decide to choose this alternative, you must support your analysis with statutory and case law.

Take Home Examination (two questions)

Question #1:

Assume that Pete is a real estate broker. Before Pete married Rhonda, Pete owned three houses: house A, house B and house C. When the three houses were originally purchased, Pete paid $75,000 (market value) for each one (totaling $225,000). Pete paid $25, 000 cash as a down payment on each house at the time they were purchased (total of $75,000) . This left initial mortgages of $50,000 on each house. When Pete married Rhonda the mortgage on house A was $25,000 and the mortgage on house B was $25,000. At the time of the marriage, Pete had fully paid off the mortgage of house C (there was nothing owing on it) . The market value of each of the three houses at the time Pete married Rhonda was $100,000.

The couple's marriage lasted 20 years. During the entire time of marriage they lived in house A and considered it their home. They continued to rent out houses B & C. From the rental income they eventually purchased another house, house D. At the time of the purchase of house D it had a market value of $100,000. Using money received from the renters of houses B & C, the couple made a down payment of $50,000 on house D. They then rented out house D. At the time of the dissolution, the market value of house D had not changed, however the mortgage has been reduced so that only $40, 000 is owed on it. The market value at the time of the dissolution on houses A, B and C is $150, 000. Each house is worth $150,000 on the market.

During the marriage Pete kept a separate account into which Pete put all of the rental income from all houses (B, C & D) . After using the money to purchase house D, there was $40,000 left in the account. At the time of the dissolution, there is $55,000 in the account. Pete also purchased an expensive car for $50,000 about a year before the marriage collapsed. Pete claims that it was purchased using income from the three houses. Title to the car was only in Pete's name. Note that at the time of the divorce, neither house A or B had a mortgage on it.

Prior to the marriage (in 1973) Pete and Rhonda executed an antenuptial agreement. In the agreement Rhonda agreed that all of Pete's nonmarital property, including any income from property or properties, would remain Pete's nonmarital property during the marriage. The agreement was witnessed but not notarized; Pete's lawyer drafted the agreement and it is clear that Rhonda was explained and understood the consequences of the agreement. In return for signing the agreement, Rhonda agreed to accept $10,000 in cash, should the couple divorce.

Assume that because of the couple's current financial picture the court awarded Rhonda permanent maintenance of $400.00 per month. Furthermore, assume that Rhonda, who has been a traditional homemaker, has not been able to get a job outside the home since the marriage broke down. Rhonda has a high school education and was a clerk in a local store before the marriage.

Pete insists that all of the property, including the four houses, car and bank account are all Pete's property. Rhonda claims the antenuptial agreement is void and that Rhonda is entitled to a portion of each house, the bank account and the car.

Discuss all of the property and antenuptial agreement issues. Calculate and show your calculations if necessary to support your discussion of the property issues. Assume that Minnesota law applies to the dispute. Note the effective date of Minnesota's antenuptial agreement statutes.

Question #2:

Assume that Phil and Ramona have been married for 15 years and have two children, age 6 and 8. The family lived in Minnesota for the past twelve years. Phil returned home one night to discover that Ramona left the home with the two children and flew to her mother's home in Kansas. Two days late Phil was served at work in Minnesota with a notice of a hearing under the UCCJA in Kansas. (That state's statute is identical to Minnesota's). Ramona alleged in support of her request for custody of the children that Phil was verbally and physically abusing her and to save her children from harm and herself from serious injury she fled Minnesota. She alleged that Minnesota's justice system couldn't protect her from a person like Phil.

In addition to seeking temporary custody of the children under the UCCJA, Ramona filed a domestic abuse complaint (Kansas law is identical to Minnesota's) . A notice of the Domestic Abuse hearing was served on Phil, who ignored it.

Phil's lawyer advised Phil to ignore all of the Kansas proceeding. Consequently, Phil made no appearance in Kansas to challenge its jurisdiction. At the Domestic Abuse proceeding the Kansas court issued a domestic abuse order granting custody to Ramona, and ordered that Phil pay $400 a month in child support and $400 a month maintenance. The order was to be effective for one year. A copy of the order was served personally on Phil in Minnesota by a private process server.

When Phil learned about Ramona's Kansas Filings, he immediately began an action in Minnesota to dissolve the couple's marriage. Ramona was personally served in Kansas by the local sheriff with a summons and petition to dissolve the marriage. Service was made via Minnesota's long-arm statute. Ramona ignored the service of the two documents and refused to put in an answer.

Ramona then asked the Kansas court to dissolve the couple's marriage and award her permanent maintenance, child support, attorney fees and custody of the couple's children.

In July the Kansas court dissolved the marriage. It made the temporary awards and decisions regarding custody that were made by the Domestic Abuse judge permanent. It also awarded Ramona $1,000 in attorney's fees. A copy of this order and judgment was personally served on Phil in Minnesota before Minnesota issued its judgment.

Two days after the Kansas court issued its judgment, Minnesota awarded Phil a default divorce, ordered the children returned to Minnesota, granted Phil sole legal and physical custody of the children, declared that Ramona must pay $400 per month per child to Phil for support, $2,000 a month for two years for maintenance, and gave Phil the couple's homestead free and clear of any interest of Ramona in it. The court also required that Ramona pay the $5,000 in outstanding debts incurred by the couple.

Assume that two years pass and neither party obeys the other party's order. Assume Phil then brings an action in federal district court in Minnesota to enforce the decree and to collect $56,000 in outstanding child support, maintenance, and attorney's fees.

Also assume that during this latest litigation (the federal court action), the oldest child runs away from Ramona (who continues to live in Kansas) and arrives at the home of Phil (who continues to live in Minnesota). Phil files for emergency custody of the child under the UCCJA in Minnesota. The court rejects the filing, telling Phil that the action must be filed in Kansas and that the Parental Kidnapping Act is controlling.

Discuss all of the jurisdictional issues in this problem.