In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson and Robert Gregory Hutchinson, In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson and Robert Gregory Hutchinson
v.
Upon the Petition of Susan Gayle Hutchinson, And Concerning Robert Gregory Hutchinson
Susan Gayle Hutchinson seeks further review of the court of appeals opinion that reversed and remanded the district court’s modification of the parties’ dissolution decree based upon Robert Hutchinson’s alleged extrinsic fraud. The court of appeals concluded Susan failed to exercise reasonable diligence, which would have permitted her to learn of Robert’s purported fraud within one year after the judgment. The court of appeals additionally held that the district court erred in awarding a portion of Robert’s 401(k) to Susan, remanded the case for the district court to determine whether attorney fees should have been awarded, and vacated the award of sanctions and remanded to allow the record be developed concerning the unredacted attorney fee statement and sanctions award.
Applicant
In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson and Robert Gregory Hutchinson, In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson and Robert Gregory Hutchinson
Resister
Upon the Petition of Susan Gayle Hutchinson, And Concerning Robert Gregory Hutchinson
Attorneys for the Applicant
Richard F. Mitvalsky
Thomas F. Ochs
Attorney for the Resister
Webb L. Wassmer
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Jan 19, 2022 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by May, P.J. Special Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Schumacher, J. (32 pages)
Robert Hutchinson appeals the modification of the parties’ dissolution decree based upon his alleged extrinsic fraud. OPINION HOLDS: Susan Hutchinson has not shown that reasonable diligence would not have permitted her to discover Robert’s fraud within one year after entry of the decree. Accordingly, Susan is not entitled to recover in this proceeding. PARTIAL DISSENT AND SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: As Robert committed extrinsic fraud that could not be discovered with due diligence within one year of the decree, the district court should be affirmed in part. The requirement for Robert to pay a portion of the property settlement from a pension acquired after the marriage should be modified. Further, appellate attorney fees for Susan are appropriate, with a remand required on the issue of sanctions for development of the record and for consideration of Robert’s request for attorney fees on the dismissed count of Susan’s petition.