Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-03-2024
Case Style:
In re Marriage of Kyle Ryan Johnson v. Danielle Marie Gilbert
Case Number: 27-FS-21-5248
Judge: Not Available
Court: District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Minneapolis, Minnesota divorce lawyers represented the parties in a marriage dissolution action involving property division.
Appellant Danielle Gilbert (wife) and respondent Kyle Johnson (husband) were married in October 2017. A few years later, in 2021, the parties purchased a home for $966,050. Because the listing price of the home was more than the parties could afford, wife's father purchased the home for the parties in cash he obtained from a trust, giving the parties a loan of $230,000 in May 2021, and another loan of $608,949 in June 2021. Wife's father also gifted the parties $130,000 to put toward the home.
The parties closed on their home in June 2021, and on September 5, 2021, husband wrote his father-in-law a check for $70,000 as a partial repayment for the house. And after the parties executed a mortgage in favor of Edgewater Title Group LLC, wife's father received a check on behalf of the parties for $725,000 from Edgewater Title Group dated September 24, 2021. Consequently, by the end of September 2021, wife's father had received $795,000 of the $838,949 that he had loaned to the parties. The parties then executed a promissory note on September 27, 2021, in favor of wife's father for the remaining $43,949.43, which represented the balance owed to wife's father related to the purchase of the parties' home.[1]
In the meantime, in July or August 2021, wife informed husband that she was gay and that she wanted a divorce. The parties subsequently filed a joint petition for dissolution without children on October 11, 2021, and on November 19, 2021, the district court entered judgment on the divorce decree without a hearing. Pursuant to the parties' stipulated judgment, husband was awarded the marital home, including the equity and debt.
On November 11, 2022, wife moved to reopen the parties' November 19, 2021, judgment and decree "for fraud and misrepresentation as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(3) [(2022)], or in the alternative, reopen the parties divorce decree for mistake as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(1) [(2022)]." Wife claimed that the parties had a verbal agreement to share in the equity of the marital home, and that husband committed fraud with respect to the decree because he failed to abide by the parties' agreement, and instead awarded himself the home, including all of its equity.
In support of her motion, wife filed an affidavit alleging that husband was primarily responsible for the parties' finances during the marriage. Wife also claimed that, during their discussions related to their marriage dissolution, they agreed that husband would retain the home and reimburse wife for her marital equity in the homestead. According to wife, husband told her that he would "handle" the petition for dissolution, and after she moved out of the home, she went to the home and signed the "signatory page" of the decree in the kitchen without seeing the "decree itself." (Emphasis omitted.) Wife claimed that, although husband asked her if she wanted to see the document, she told him that she "trusted him" to put their agreement in the joint petition.
Wife alleged that, in September 2022, she began asking husband when she would be paid for her equity in the home, and that after receiving evasive responses, she contacted an attorney. According to wife, it was not until she consulted with an attorney that she became aware that husband had awarded himself the full equity in the marital home in contravention of what she alleged was their verbal agreement. Finally, wife submitted text-message threads between her and husband, which she claims show that husband agreed to split the equity in the home.
Husband opposed wife's motion and filed an affidavit supporting his position. In his affidavit, husband acknowledged that the parties "discussed various ways to deal with the house and discussed a buy-out of [wife's] equity (we did not discuss a buy-out amount or any specific terms), but [he] could not afford to do so." Husband also claimed that the "final agreement was that [he] would be awarded the house outright." According to husband, he believed that wife "felt bad for the position she had put us in and realized too that [they] stood to lose a lot of money in the house [they] had just purchased." Husband alleged that wife "was awarded more of other assets," and that they "came to an agreement that [they] both felt was fair." Husband further claimed that the parties "discussed getting attorneys," but that wife was "concerned about the process being drawn out," and that he "understood that [wife] wanted to get divorced as fast as possible so she could move on from [their] marriage and experience life as an out member of the LGBTQ community." Finally, husband claimed that, after filling out the divorce paperwork at wife's request, he left "all of it" on the kitchen counter for her to review and sign.
Johnson v. Gilbert, A23-0699 (Minn. App. Jun 03, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: