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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0109

In re the Marriage of:

Edward Luke Lazzaro, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Susan Louise Coen,
Appellant.

Filed December 16, 2024
Affirmed as modified
Cochran, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-FA-19-1028

Jeremy M. Hurd, Beaumier Trogdon Orman Hurd & Viegas, PLLP, Duluth, Minnesota
(for respondent)

Susan Louis Coen, Duluth, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Connolly , Judge; and
Cochran, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
COCHRAN, Judge
In this appeal, appellant challenges the district court’s order granting respondent’s
motion to compel compliance with a prior order enforcing the parties’ dissolution judgment
and decree. Specifically, appellant contends that the district court improperly modified the
2
dissolution judgment and decree through its current order and the prior enforcement order,
and thus abused its discretion. Appellant also argues the district court abused its discretion
by awarding conduct-based attorney fees to respondent. We discern no abuse of discretion,
and we affirm as modified consistent with respondent’s concession as to one expense.
FACTS
Dissolution Judgment and Decree
In August 2021, the district court entered a judgment and decree dissolving the
marriage of appellant Susan Louise Coen (wife) and respondent Edward Luke Lazzaro
(husband). Relevant to this appeal, the dissolution judgment and decree ordered the
following division of marital property: (1) “[husband] is awarded one-half interest in
[wife’s] State Farm Termination Agreement benefit . . . . This benefit shall be transferred
to [husband] pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order [(QDRO)] or other document
deemed necessary by State Farm,” and wife’s attorney “shall be responsible for drafting ”
the necessary documents, (2) “[t]he parties shall sell the Wyndham Time Share and the
proceeds shall be divided equally between them,” (3) a parcel of real property “shall be
retained by Conrad Properties, LLC (Conrad LLC), for transfer to [the parties’ son] when
he becomes an adult,” (4) two parcels of real property held by JMCL Properties LLC
(JMCL LLC), that the parties own or have an interest in, “shall be sold and the proceeds
divided equally between the parties,” and (5) certain property is to be sold, and the proceeds
divided equally, including a “[l]adies 14K yellow-gold diamond wedding ring.” Neither
party appealed from the judgment and decree, and no party has moved for it to be reopened.
3
January 2023 Enforcement Order
Approximately one year after the parties’ marriage was dissolved, husband moved
for enforcement of certain provisions of the judgment and decree and for an award of
conduct-based attorney fees. In support of his motion, husband alleged wife violated the
judgment and decree by: (1) not properly drafting the State Farm QDRO documents and
not providing documentation regarding the valuation of the State Farm benefit, requiring
husband to subpoena records from State Farm, (2) not completing the sale of the Wyndham
Time Share after husband made offers to purchase the asset from wife, (3) not completing
the assignment of the Conrad LLC property on their child’s eighteenth birthday, (4) failing
to immediately list the JMCL LLC properties for sale, and ( 5) not complying with the
judgment and decree’s provisions regarding certain personal property including the
“[l]adies 14K yellow- gold diamond wedding ring.” As a result, husband moved for
conduct-based attorney fees, arguing that wife “willfully disobeyed the Court’s order” and
“delayed the property settlement.”
In January 2023, the district court filed an order granting husband’s motion to
enforce the judgment and decree, concluding that wife had violated several provisions of
the judgment and decree . In relevant part, t he district court found wife (1) was “not
forthcoming” regarding the valuation of the State Farm benefit and did not provide the
necessary documents within the timeline set forth in the judgment and decree,
(2) “intentionally” neglected to transfer the Conrad LLC property to the parties’ son on
January 22, 2022, when he “became an adult ,” and still had not executed the transfer
documents, (3) “unilaterally decided not to obey” the order to sell the JMCL LLC
4
properties, and (4) was “in violation of the Court’s order on division of the personal
property.”
To remedy these violations, the district court ordered (1) wife to amend the QDRO
for the State Farm benefit with the valuation date of September 13, 2021, and deliver the
QDRO documents to husband, fully completed, within ten days of the filing of the order ,
(2) the parties “to execute the necessary documents to complete the transfer” of the Conrad
LLC property, effective January 22, 2022, (3) wife to “be solely responsible for all
expenses of Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC incurred after January 1, 2022,” and (4) the
“ladies 14K yellow-gold diamond wedding ring” be purchased by husband for $1,000 and
wife deliver the ring within ten days of the filing of the order. Further, the district court
awarded husband the option to purchase the Wyndham timeshare for $4,500 based on its
finding that the Wyndham timeshare had not been sold and that husband had “last offered
$4,500.” The district court also included the following provision: “In the event that [wife]
fails to comply with the terms of this Order, [husband] may bring a motion for contempt.”
The January 2023 order also addressed husband’s motion for conduct-based
attorney fees. Specifically, the district court found wife “continues a pattern of conduct
that has contributed to the length and expense of these proceedings .” Further, the district
court found that wife violated numerous provisions of the dissolution judgment and decree.
But the district court reserved the issue of husband’s motion for conduct-based attorney
fees, without determining whether wife had an obligation to pay . On January 30, 2023,
judgment was entered. Neither party appealed the January 2023 order and judgment.
5
Husband’ s Motion for Contempt
In May 2023, husband moved the court to hold wife in contempt for violation of the
January 2023 order. In support of the motion, husband alleged that wife: had not executed
the necessary document to transfer the State Farm benefit to husband; had not executed a
deed for the Wyndham timeshare conveying husband the timeshare for $2,250, his share
of the $4,500 purchase price; had not executed an assignment of the Conrad LLC properties
effective January 22, 2022; and had delivered a different ring than the court-ordered “ladies
14K yellow-gold diamond wedding ring.” Husband also requested the court order that the
document transferring the State Farm benefit be modified to allow husband to list a
beneficiary. Husband further moved for reimbursement of $5,259.31 in expenses related
to the Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC properties. Finally, husband moved for conduct-based
attorney fees and costs.
Wife filed a responsive motion and countermotion. In her filing, she argued that
she had completed necessary paperwork for both the transfer of the State Farm benefit and
the Conrad LLC property. She also asserted that she had delivered the correct wedding
ring. Wife further argued that she did not owe any expenses related to the Conrad LLC
and JMCL LLC properties because husband paid those expenses out of shared accounts
and used her funds in doing so. Finally, she asked the district court to order husband to
make payments to her that she alleged were due under the January 2023 order, including
an additional $2,250 for the Wyndham timeshare.
In October 2023, the district court filed an order addressing the parties’ cross
motions. In the order, the district court concluded that wife had violated the January 2023
6
order, without a good faith reason, by (1) failing to provide necessary paperwork, with the
proper valuation date, to transfer the State Farm benefit, (2) failing to execute the
assignment of Conrad LLC with the court-ordered effective date, (3) failing to deliver the
ring that husband purchased, and (4) insisting on receiving all the proceeds of the $4,500
purchase price for the Wyndham timeshare rather than splitting the proceeds equally .
Judgment was entered on the October 5, 2023 order on December 22, 2023.
To address these violations, the district court first ordered wife to provide the proper
documents to transfer the State Farm benefit, fully executed, to husband within ten days,
and that the documents include language allowing husband to list a beneficiary. Second,
the district court ordered wife to execute the assignment of Conrad LLC to the parties’ son
with the January 22, 2022, effective date, within ten days, and to pay $5,259.31 in expenses
to husband for the Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC properties. Third, the district court
required wife to deliver the correct ring to husband within ten days of the order. Fourth,
the district court ordered wife receive half of the $4,500 purchase price for the Wyndham
timeshare, noting that “[a]ll other valuations of the parties’ assets were divided between
them.” Lastly, the district court awarded husband conduct-based attorney fees and costs.
Wife appeals.
DECISION
In a self-represented brief, wife asks this court to vacate the October 2023 order and
the resulting judgment. Wife argues that the district court abused its discretion by
improperly modifying the August 2021 dissolution judgment and decree. Wife also argues
7
that the district court abused its discretion by awarding conduct-based attorney fees. We
consider each argument in turn and conclude that neither is persuasive.
I. The district court did not modify the division of marital property in the
dissolution judgment and decree.

Wife argues that the district court impermissibly changed the property division set
forth in the dissolution judgment and decree through various provisions of the
January 2023 order and the October 2023 order. Husband argues that neither order
modified the division of property. We agree with husband.1
While a district court may not modify a final property division except in limited
circumstances not applicable here, “it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify
the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.”
Redmond v. Redmond, 594 N.W.2d 272, 275 (Minn. App. 1999); see Minn. Stat. § 518.145,
subd. 2 (2022) (providing for reopening of a dissolution judgment and decree for specified
reasons within a reasonable time or, for certain reasons, within a year of entry of the
judgment and decree). A district court may interpret or clarif y ambiguous or indefinite

1 Husband also argues that any challenge to the January 2023 order is not properly before
this court because the January 2023 order is a final order and the time for appeal of that
order expired before wife filed the current appeal. Husband’s argument, however, does
not consider that the January 2023 order expressly reserved the issue of attorney fees, and
the district court did not decide the issue until the October 2023 order. Consequently, the
January 2023 order was not final for appeal purposes until the October 2023 order was
filed and judgment entered on that order. See Baertsch v. Baertsch, 886 N.W.2d 235, 239
(Minn. App. 2016) (finding the time for appeal had not commenced after the district court
granted husband’s motion for conduct-based attorney fees but had not yet entered judgment
as to the amount). Accordingly, wife’s arguments regarding the January 2023 order are
properly before us. But, as discussed in the body of the opinion, none of her arguments
merit reversal.
8
terms in a dissolution judgment, and clarification of an ambiguous provision does not
constitute an amendment of the judgment. Hanson v. Hanson, 379 N.W.2d 230, 232
(Minn. App. 1985). A district court properly enforces the judgment and decree when its
orders are designed to fairly implement the judgment and decree. See id. at 232-33. But
an order implementing, enforcing, or clarifying provisions of the dissolution judgment and
decree is impermissible if it has the effect of modifying the dissolution judgment and
decree by giving one party “more or less” than they received under the original property
division. See id. at 233.
We review a district court’s order to clarify and enforce the terms of a dissolution
judgment and decree for an abuse of discretion. Nelson v. Nelson, 806 N.W.2d 870, 871
(Minn. App. 2011). “A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that
are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is
against logic and the facts on record.” Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn.
2022) (quoting Bender v. Bernhard, 971 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2022)).
Wife argues that the district court abused its discretion by modifying the dissolution
judgment and decree as it relates to (1) the State Farm Benefit, (2) the Wyndham
Timeshare, (3) the Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC properties, and (4) the ladies 14k
yellow-gold diamond ring. We address wife’s arguments in turn.
State Farm Benefit
The August 2021 dissolution judgment and decree states “[ husband] is awarded
one-half interest in [ wife’s] State Farm Termination Agreement benefit.” Further , the
judgment and decree states “[t] he benefit shall be transferred to [husband] pursuant to a
9
[QDRO] or other document deemed necessary by State Farm.” By January 2023, more
than a year after entry of the dissolution judgment and decree, wife had not completed the
necessary documentation to transfer one-half of the State Farm benefit to husband. As a
result, in the January 2023 order, the district court ordered wife’s attorney to provide the
executed documents for the State Farm benefit to husband’s attorney within ten days of
filing of that order. The district court also ordered that the documentation be amended “to
provide for a valuation date of September 13, 2021,” which is 31 days after the dissolution
judgment and decree was entered.
In the October 2023 order, the district court found that wife still had not provided
the executed documents for the State Farm benefit to husband’s attorney. Due to wife’s
lack of compliance, the district court ordered wife’s attorney to complete the necessary
“paperwork,” fully executed by wife, within ten days of the filing of the October 2023
order. The order also specified that the paperwork transferring husband’s interest “shall be
drafted to include language” allowing husband to list a beneficiary for his share of the
benefit as requested in husband’s contempt motion.
Wife argues that the district court modified the provisions of the dissolution
judgment and decree relating to the State Farm benefit by (1) specifying in the
January 2023 order that the valuation date for the State Farm benefit is September 13, 2021,
and (2) requiring in the October 2023 order that the documents transferring husband’s share
of the benefit be amended to allow husband to list a beneficiary should he predecease wife.
We first address the valuation date. We conclude that the inclusion of the valuation
date in the January 2023 order did not modify the dissolution judgment and decree. Instead,
10
inclusion of the valuation date clarified the terms of the dissolution judgment and decree.
A dispute arose between the parties as to the proper valuation date because the term was
not expressly stated in the dissolution judgment and decree. In resolving the dispute, the
district court clarified that, when it entered the dissolution judgment and decree, it intended
the valuation date to be the date the QDRO was to be submitted under the judgment and
decree—specifically, September 13, 2021. The addition of the valuation date did not
provide either party more or less than was originally provided under the judgment and
decree, because the parties are each still en titled to one- half interest in the benefit as
required by the dissolution judgment and decree.2 Accordingly, we conclude that the
addition of the valuation date did not modify the terms of the judgment and decree. See
Hanson, 379 N.W.2d at 232-33.
With regard to wife’s argument about the beneficiary language, we conclude that
the district court did not modify the judgment and decree by requiring the inclusion of this
language, but rather the language was necessary to enforce the terms of the judgment and
decree. The dissolution judgment and decree states that husband is to “receive one half
interest” in the State Farm benefit but does not specify whether husband would be allowed
to list a beneficiary . If husband were not able to list a beneficiary , husband would not
receive a “one half interest” should he happen to die before wife. Such a result would be

2 Wife did not raise at the district court, and does not argue on appeal, that the valuation of
the State Farm benefit should be governed by Minnesota Statutes section 518.58,
subdivision 1 (2022). Thus, any argument based on this statutory provision is forfeited.
See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that appellate courts must
only consider arguments that were “presented and considered” by the district court
(quotation omitted)).
11
inconsistent with the language of the judgment and decree that husband “receive one half
interest” in the State Farm benefit. Thus, the district court properly implemented the
dissolution judgment and decree when it required the document transferring the State Farm
benefit to allow husband to list a beneficiary. See id. at 233.
Wyndham Timeshare
The dissolution judgment and decree states, “the parties are the owners of a
Wyndham Time Share, . . . which they agree shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally
between the parties.” In the January 2023 order, the district court noted that both parties
had made offers to purchase the timeshare, but no agreement was reached. The court
further found that husband “last offered $4,500” and accordingly the district court ordered
that husband “shall have the option to purchase the timeshare for the sum of $4,500.” In
the October 2023 order, the district court noted that the parties disagreed as to whether the
purchase language from the January 2023 order “means [wife] receives $4,500 or half that
amount.” The district court concluded that, consistent with how all other assets were
valued and divided under the judgment and decree, “a purchase price of $4,500 for the
Wyndham timeshare would mean that [wife] would be entitled to half that amount.” Wife
argues that this language in the October 2023 order providing that wife is entitled to half
of the $4,500 rather than the full amount impermissibly modified the dissolution judgment
and decree.
We conclude that the language in the October 2023 order clarifies and enforces,
rather than modifies, the dissolution judgment and decree’s provision for equal division of
the proceeds from the sale of the Wyndham timeshare. As noted above, the dissolution
12
judgment and decree states that the proceeds of the sale of the Wyndham timeshare shall
be “equally divided by the parties.” Equal division of the $4,500 sale price for the
Wyndham property is consistent with the property division of other assets subject to sale
under the judgment and decree. This is apparent in the January 2023 order, wherein the
parties purchased certain assets and the district court calculated an equalization payment
to divide the purchase price between the parties. And the January 2023 order did not
modify the dissolution judgment and decree but rather it set the purchase price (or
valuation) for the timeshare at $4,500 when it specified that husband could purchase the
timeshare at that price. Thus, the district court’s order that wife receive half of the $4,500
purchase price fairly implements the judgment and decree and ensures that no party gets
more or less under the dissolution judgment and decree. See id. at 232-33.
Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC
The dissolution judgment and decree states that a rental property “shall be retained
by Conrad Properties, LLC, for transfer to the minor child when he becomes an adult .”
The dissolution judgment and decree also ordered the immediate sale of the properties held
by JMCL LLC. Wife argues that the January 2023 order modified the dissolution judgment
and decree by (1) requiring the Conrad LLC transfer occur effective January 22, 2022, and
(2) ordering that wife would be solely responsible for expenses related to the Conrad LLC
and JMCL LLC properties after January 1, 2022. Neither provision of the January 2023
order modifies the dissolution judgment and decree.3

3 Neither party argues that the district court lacked authority to include provisions regarding
the division of corporate assets, and their related expenses, in the judgment and decree, nor
13
With regard to the Conrad LLC property, the district court included the language
regarding the transfer date in the January 2023 order because t he parties disagreed about
implementation of this provision. Husband argued that the transfer was to occur on the
son’s eighteenth birthday (which was on January 22, 2022), and wife argued that the
transfer should occur when the son graduated from high school in May 2022, because she
felt that the son “was not mature enough to handle a rental property” when he turned
eighteen. In the January 2023 order, the district court found that wife had intentionally
delayed the transfer of the property beyond the son’s eighteenth birthday and unilaterally
chose the son’s graduation date to transfer the property, even though wife knew her actions
were contrary to the terms of the dissolution judgment and decree . To address wife’s lack
of compliance, the district court specified that the effective date of the transfer would be
January 22, 2022, the child’s eighteenth birthday. The inclusion of the effective date did
not result in either party receiving more or less than contemplated under the judgment and
decree because the property was not to be retained by either party. The district court simply
removed all doubts about the meaning of the otherwise unambiguous phrase “when he
becomes an adult.” Thus, this clarification was not an abuse of discretion as it did not
modify the judgment and decree. See id. at 232.
In addition to ordering that the Conrad LLC property be assigned to the minor child
when he became an adult, the August 2021 dissolution judgment and decree required wife

do the parties contend that the district court lacked authority to award property to a
nonparty child. Consequently, we do not address the district court’s authority in this
regard.
14
to list the JMCL LLC properties for sale immediately. In the January 2023 order, the
district court found that wife had completed neither. Continued ownership of the Conrad
LLC and JMCL LLC properties exposed the parties to expenses related to the properties
not contemplated by the dissolution judgment and decree. To address this situation, the
district court ordered any expenses related to the Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC properties
after January 1, 2022, would be the sole responsibility of wife. Ordering wife to be solely
responsible for these expenses fairly implements the judgment and decree because wife
was responsible for the delay in the sale of the properties giving rise to the expenses. See
id. at 233. Furthermore, because the expenses were not contemplated by the dissolution
judgment and decree, ordering that wife be responsible for the expenses does not give her
“more or less” under the judgment and decree. See id. at 232-33.
Wife also argues that the district court erred in its award of $5,259.31 for expenses
related to the Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC properties to husband. Wife challenges $647.12
in expenses paid from the Conrad LLC account. She argues that husband should not be
reimbursed for those expenses because the expenses were paid from the Conrad LLC
account that both parties had access to, and husband had already withdrawn his division of
the funds. So, in effect, the $647.12 in expenses that husband paid came from wife’s funds.
Husband concedes that the record does not support his request for $647.12 of expenses
paid out of the shared Conrad LLC account. But, regarding the remaining expenses paid
out of the JMCL LLC account, the record does support an award of expenses from that
account. The record shows that the parties received an equal division of the funds out of
the JMCL LLC account. Thus, any expenses paid out of that account by husband did not
15
impact wife’s division. Therefore, we agree that it is appropriate to modify the district
court’s award of $5,259.31 in expenses for the Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC properties
downward by $647.12, resulting in an award of $4,612.19 in expenses for these properties.
Ladies 14K Yellow-Gold Diamond Wedding Ring
The dissolution judgment and decree lists items of personal property, including the
“[l]adies 14K yellow-gold diamond wedding ring” that the parties agreed “shall be sold
and the proceeds divided equally between” them. In the January 2023 order, the district
court awarded husband the “[l]adies 14K yellow-gold diamond wedding ring” for $1, 000
and ordered wife to deliver the ring to husband within ten days. In the October 2023 order,
the district court found that wife had delivered a “heart-shaped ring” to husband , which
was not a ring specified in the January 2023 order. Consequently, the October 2023 order
directed wife to deliver the correct ring.
Wife argues that the district court abused its discretion when it found, in the
October 2023 order, that wife had delivered the incorrect ring. To support her argument,
wife offers an appraisal of the heart-shaped ring that she delivered to husband. But she
does not explain how the appraisal demonstrates that she delivered the ring specified by
the district court in the January 2023 order —the “[l]adies 14K yellow-gold diamond
wedding ring.” Moreover, the appraisal lists the value of several different rings, including
a heart-shaped ring and a “[l]adies 14K yellow-gold diamond wedding ring. ” Thus, the
record supports the district court’s findings that the heart-shaped ring is a separate ring
from the ring that was to be delivered. In sum, the district court did not clearly err when it
found that wife delivered the incorrect ring. Moreover, the language in the October 2023
16
order requiring wife to deliver the correct ring was intended to implement a provision in
the 2021 dissolution judgment and decree regarding the sale of the ring. See id. at 233.
For the foregoing reasons, we reject wife’s arguments that provisions of the
October 2023 and January 2023 orders modified the August 2021 judgment and decree .
We discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in this regard, but we agree that
modification of the expense award relating to the Conrad LLC and JMCL LLC properties
is appropriate and reduce the award to $4,612.19.4
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding husband conduct-
based attorney fees.

Wife next argues that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded
husband conduct-based attorney fees under Minnesota Statutes section 518.14, subd. 1
(2022). We are not persuaded.
Section 518.14, subdivision 1, governs attorney fees and specifies when a party is
entitled to fees in a dissolution proceeding. This provision also states that a district court
may award “in its discretion, additional fees, costs, and disbursements against a party who
unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding.” Minn. Stat. § 518.14,
subd. 1; see also Buckner v. Robichaud, 992 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Minn. 2023) (discussing
conduct-based attorney fees when a party unreasonably contributes to the length of
dissolution of marriage proceedings). A party unreasonably contributes to the length of

4 To the extent that wife also argues that the district court judge who entered the October
2023 order misunderstood the August 2021 judgment and decree because the judgment and
decree was signed by a different judge, we decline to consider this argument. Wife offers
no legal or factual support for her argument. Therefore, the argument is forfeited. State v.
Bursch, 905 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Minn. App. 2017).
17
proceedings when they adopt non-cooperative positions or violate court orders. See
Korf v. Korf, 553 N.W.2d 706, 711 (Minn. App. 1996); Burton v. Burton, 365 N.W.2d 310,
312 (Minn. App. 1985), rev. denied (Minn. May 31, 1985).
We review the district court’s award of conduct-based attorney fees for an abuse of
discretion. Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814, 825 (Minn. 1999). The district court has
“considerable discretion” in awarding attorney fees, Beck v. Kaplan, 566 N.W.2d 723, 727
(Minn. 1997), and we will not disturb the district court’s award of attorney fees absent a
clear abuse of discretion, Erickson v. Erickson, 452 N.W.2d 253, 256 (Minn. App. 1990).
We do not presume error in the district court’s findings, and the burden of proving error
rests with “the one who relies upon it.” Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc.,
237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975) (quoting Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949)).
In awarding husband attorney fees, the district court found “the attorney fees and
costs were necessarily incurred to enforce the terms of the August 13, 2021, Order and
Decree.” Further the district court found “the attorney fees incurred were reasonable in
light of the conduct of [wife] that required [husband] to seek the court’s assistance to
enforce the January 30, 2023, Order and respond to [wife’s] unfounded countermotion.”
Wife argues the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to
husband because it ordered the fees “without the court looking at [wife’s] Response to
Motion for Contempt and Reply to Opposition Response of Countermotion.” Further wife
contends that her conduct did not cause husband to file a motion for contempt and thus did
“unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding.” See Minn.
Stat. § 518.14, subd. 1.
18
Wife’s argument is unavailing. As a preliminary matter, w ife does not cite to any
relevant legal authority to support her argument and her argument lacks sufficient citation
to the record. Arguments presented in summary form, without supporting legal authority,
are forfeited. Bursch, 905 N.W.2d at 889. While we recognize that wife is self-represented
on appeal, “this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to
the same standards as attorneys.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 6 29 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.
App. 2001). Thus, wife’s argument is forfeited.
Even assuming wife’s argument is properly before us, we discern no abuse of
discretion by the district court in its award of conduct-based attorney fees for several
reasons. First, the October 2023 order reflects that the district court considered wife’s
response to husband’s motion for contempt and rejected her argument, concluding that wife
failed to comply with the dissolution judgment and decree and the January 2023 order.
Second, the district court’s order shows that the district court did consider wife’s
countermotion to husband’s motion for contempt and concluded the countermotion was
“unfounded.” Third, the record supports the district court’s determination that husband’s
motion for contempt was necessary to enforce the dissolution judgment and decree and the
January 2023 order. Specifically, the record reflects that wife did not comply with
provisions relating to (1) the State Farm benefit, (2) assignment of the Conrad LLC
property, (3) the sale of the Wyndham Timeshare, and (4) the ring. While the October 2023
order contained some points of clarification, the record shows that wife’s violations of the
judgment and decree unreasonably contributed to the length of the proceedings. Finally,
wife’s argument does not identify any specific fees that were improperly awarded. Instead,
19
wife’s argument is based solely upon a generalized contention which, as discussed above,
lacks merit. In sum, wife has not met her burden to demonstrate that the district court
abused its discretion when it awarded conduct-based attorney fees and costs.
Affirmed as modified.