In re the Marriage of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1496

In re the Marriage of:

Marilena Elizabeth Hyman, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Sean Michael Hyman,
Appellant.

Filed October 30, 2023
Affirmed; motion denied
Bjorkman, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-21-856

Tifanne E. E. Wolter, Henningson & Snoxell, Ltd., Maple Grove, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Sean Hyman, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman , Judge; and
Hooten, Judge.∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
In this parenting-time dispute, appellant-father argues that the district court abused
its discretion by denying his motions to (1) vacate and amend portions of the stipulated
marital dissolution judgment and decree based on fraud by respondent-mother, and
(2) award him conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Sean Michael Hyman (father) and respondent Marilena Elizabeth Hyman
(mother) married in 2014 and have two minor children, born in 2013 and 2016. In February
2021, mother petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. At that time, she worked as a high
school paraprofessional during the school year and held two other part-time jobs. Father
is a former police officer who was injured in the line of duty and is unable to work.
In November 2021, the parties resolved the disputes between them during a
moderated settlement conference. At the time of the conference, mother had applied and
interviewed for a new full-time job. A few days later, mother accepted the new job; she
signed the parties stipulation that same day. Father subsequently signed that stipulation,
and the district court later signed and entered judgment on it. Shortly thereafter, mother
began her new job. She advised father of her new position, and the two agreed to modify
child support to reflect mother’s increased income.
Father moved the district court to vacate and amend the dissolution judgment
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(3) (2022). He argued that (1) mother committed
fraud by failing to disclose her job interview prior to the settlement conference and by
3
accepting the job offer prior to signing the stipulation, and (2) the nondisclosures implicate
the agreed-to allocation of parenting time. Father also requested conduct-based attorney
fees based on the additional court proceedings occasioned by mother’s nondisclosures.
The district court denied husband’s motions, reasoning that mother ’s conduct did
not amount to fraud and declining “to award attorney’s fees on the basis of either party’s
unreasonable contribution to the length or expense of the proceeding.”
Father appeals.1
DECISION
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying husband’s motion to
vacate and amend the stipulated dissolution judgment based on fraud.

A district court may relieve a party to a dissolution proceeding “from a judgment
and decree, order, or proceeding” for “fraud, whether denominated intrinsic or extrinsic,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” Minn. Stat. § 518.145,
subd. 2(3). To obtain relief under this statute, a party must make a showing of ordinary
fraud. Doering v. Doering, 629 N.W.2d 124, 129-30 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied
(Minn. Sept. 11, 2001). To prevail on a claim of fraud in a typical civil case, a party must
prove, among other things, that “there was a false representation by a party of a past or
existing material fact,” which was intended to and did induce another party to rely on it to

1 Husband moved this court to supplement the record to include documents the parties filed
in district court after the challenged order was entered. Because the documents were not
presented to the district court in connection with the appealed order, we deny husband’s
motion. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court
may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal.”); Minn. R. Civ. App.
P. 110.01 (limiting the record on appeal to matter that was before the district court).
4
their detriment. Driscoll v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 785 N.W.2d 805, 811 (Minn. App.
2010), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2010). But “[o]rdinary fraud, in a dissolution context,
does not require an affirmative misrepresentation or an intentional course of concealment
because parties to a marriage dissolution have a duty to disclose all assets and liabilities
completely and accurately.” Doering, 629 N.W.2d at 130 (citing Bollenbach v.
Bollenbach, 175 N.W.2d 148, 155 (Minn. 1970)). We review a district court’s decision
whether to reopen a dissolution judgment for an abuse of discretion. Bender v. Bernhard,
971 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2022).
In dissolution cases involving children, the parties must disclose their full gross
income, which “includes any form of periodic payment to an individual, including, but not
limited to, salaries, wages, [and] commissions.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2022); see
Doering, 629 N.W.2d at 130. Failure to make an accurate and complete disclosure is
ordinary fraud sufficient to reopen a dissolution judgment that was based on the incomplete
disclosure. Doering, 629 N.W.2d at 130.
Father asserts that mother was obligated to disclose her new employment before the
district court entered the dissolution judgment and that her failure to do so constitutes
ordinary fraud. While the parties resolved the financial aspects of mother’s job change,
father contends that her undisclosed new year-round work schedule impacts and requires
modification of the parenting-time schedule. We are not persuaded for two reasons.
First, mother did not violate her disclosure obligations. She was still employed as
a paraprofessional and held two other part -time jobs when the parties entered their
settlement and when she signed the stipulated judgment. Mother fully and accurately
5
disclosed the gross monthly income she was then receiving from those jobs. The
affirmative duty to disclose all relevant financial information, including current earnings,
extends until the marriage is dissolved. Ronnkvist v. Ronnkvist, 331 N.W.2d 764, 766
(Minn. 1983). Mother complied with this duty. She did not receive income from her new
job until after the dissolution decree was entered. And she updated father and the court
when her gross monthly income changed. While mother could have been more
forthcoming during the settlement conference, the law expressly contemplates what
happened here—modif ication of child support after a parent begins and receives payment
from a new job. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (2022) (setting out bases for
modifying child support).
Second, the identity of mother’s employer and mother’s work schedule are not
material to the issue of parenting time. As the district court correctly noted, there is no
language in the stipulated judgment indicating that the 50/50 parenting-time agreement
turned on any specific detail of mother’s employment. A person commits fraud when they
make a false representation as to a material fact. Driscoll, 785 N.W.2d at 811. Because
mother’s work schedule is not material to the parenting-time agreement, any failure to
disclose her then potential new work schedule is not fraud.
In sum, on this record we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in
concluding mother did not commit ordinary fraud and declining to disturb the stipulated
judgment.

6
II. The district court di d not abuse its discretion by denying conduct-based
attorney fees.

District courts have discretion to award attorney fees “against a party who
unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding.” Minn. Stat. § 518.14,
subd. 1 (2022). When a party seeks attorney fees in excess of $1,000, they must submit
their request by motion. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 119.01. This motion must be accompanied
by an affidavit of an attorney of record establishing a description of the work completed,
the normal hourly rate, a detailed itemization of all expenses, and a statement that the
affiant has reviewed the work and that it was actually performed for the client. Minn. R.
Gen. Prac. 119.02. And the moving party should submit a memorandum of law discussing
the basis for recovery of attorney fees. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 119.04. A party seeking
conduct-based attorney fees has the burden of showing that the conduct in question
unreasonably contributed to the length or expense of the proceeding. Geske v. Marcolina,
624 N.W.2d 813, 818 (Minn. App. 2001). We review the denial of conduct-based attorney
fees for an abuse of discretion. Sanvik v. Sanvik, 850 N.W.2d 732, 737 (Minn. App. 2014).
Our careful review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion by the district court.
Father did not provide the district court with a memorandum of law stating a basis for relief,
which itself supports the district court’s decision. And the record supports the district
court’s implicit assessment that the behavio r of both parties contributed to the post-
judgment proceedings.
Affirmed; motion denied.