Court Opinion

ID: 9513561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:37:49.018057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:54.601786
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.
[¶ 1] Irene Bellefeuille appealed from the trial court’s order denying her motion under Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., for relief from a divorce judgment, or, in the alternative, to reinstate Irene’s spousal support. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant relief from the 1979 divorce decree under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(v) & (vi). We further conclude the trial court correctly found it did not have jurisdiction to reinstate spousal support. We therefore affirm.
[¶ 2] Irene and Duane Bellefeuille were divorced by a judgment dated November 28, 1979. The divorce judgment incorporated the parties’ stipulation and property settlement agreement.
[¶ 3] Under the terms of the agreement, Irene was awarded possession of all of the household furniture and goods. Irene was also awarded possession of the couple’s 1977 Honda, while Duane was ordered to complete payments on the remaining car loan for the Honda. Duane was awarded the 1979 Chevrolet. Additionally, Irene and Duane agreed to sell their house and divide the proceeds equally.
[¶ 4] Duane was ordered to pay spousal support “during his lifetime” and “terminating] at the end of the 5th year following entry of the judgment decree granting the divorce or until the death of the wife, whichever shall first occur.” During the first two of the five years the amount to be paid was $450 per month. After the first two years the payments would drop to $300 per month for the remaining three years.
[¶ 5] Duane also agreed to pay Irene’s costs for tuition and school expenses dur*197ing the five-year period, up to a total of $2,500. Further Duane agreed to assume all of the parties’ debts, to pay Irene’s attorney’s fees, and to maintain life insurance for Irene’s benefit for the five years.
[¶ 6] Though Irene was aware of Duane’s postal pension, it was not divided or otherwise addressed in the property agreement. Irene testified that she inquired about whether she had any rights to the pension and was told by her attorney that she did not. Thus, Duane retained the interest in his postal pension.
[¶ 7] The agreement was the product of a process which started in March of 1979 when Irene hired an attorney to begin divorce proceedings against her husband. Duane did not hire an attorney to represent him, but rather dealt directly with the attorney Irene had hired. ■ At the hearing resulting in the order for judgment, only Irene and her attorney were present; Duane did not attend.
[¶ 8] Following the divorce, Irene attended school, and Duane paid the full $2,500 as agreed. Irene completed her education and began work. Irene received spousal support for the full five years and in the full amount agreed upon. While she received spousal support, Irene did not attempt to modify the amount or duration of spousal support. Similarly, Irene made no attempt to have the property and debt allocation of the divorce judgment changed until she filed the motion here at issue.
[¶ 9] In 1999, Irene learned from a friend that she may have had a right to a portion of Duane’s postal pension. Upon consulting with an attorney, Irene learned that in the 1980s, after her divorce, the federal law governing the division of postal pensions had changed. Among other things, this change in the law apparently allowed for an ex-spouse to claim a surviv- or annuity. This opportunity was brief, however. Apparently an ex-spouse had a defined window of opportunity in which he or she could act. Though Duane was aware of the change in the law, Irene was not. Therefore, Irene did not take steps to avail herself of this opportunity.
[¶ 10] On September 28, 2000, nearly sixteen years after the last spousal support payment was made, Irene filed a N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(v) & (vi) motion for relief from the divorce judgment. Irene moved in the alternative to amend the judgment by reinstating spousal support.
[¶ 11] The trial court denied the motion. The trial court held that a motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) was inappropriate because so much time had passed and because Irene had been aware of the pension all along. The trial court further held it did not have jurisdiction to modify the spousal support, because the agreement had been fully performed and there was no reservation of jurisdiction in the divorce decree.
I N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) Motion
[¶ 12] Rule 60(b) motions are “left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision whether to vacate the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion.” Kopp v. Kopp, 2001 ND 41, ¶ 7, 622 N.W.2d 726. A trial court “abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner.” Id. In turn, a trial court “[a]cts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process by which the facts and law relied upon are stated and considered together for the purpose of achieving a reasoned and reasonable determination.” Id.
[¶ 13] Rule 60(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a trial court to provide relief from a final judgment or order under circumstances speci*198fied in the rule. Irene alleges two of these circumstances are present in this case.
[¶ 14] Irene contends relief is due her under either part (v) or part (vi) of N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(v) provides for relief when “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a previous judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” Rule 60(b)(vi) permits a court to provide relief from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” The trial court may, upon a finding of either of the above reasons, grant a Rule 60(b) motion.
[¶ 15] But Rule 60(b) “attempts to strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice should be done, and accordingly ... should be invoked only when extraordinary circumstances are present.” Kopp v. Kopp, 2001 ND 41, ¶ 9, 622 N.W.2d 726. Thus, such motions “must be made within a reasonable time.” Id. at ¶ 7. “What constitutes a reasonable time varies from case to case and must be determined in each instance from the facts before the court.” Avco Financial Semces v. Schroeder, 318 N.W.2d 910, 912 (N.D.1982).
[¶ 16] Here the trial court held that the delay between judgment and motion, nearly twenty-one years, was “well beyond any standard of case law that would allow the reopening.” Irene, however, urges that she acted within a reasonable time because she filed her motion within a year of learning she may have had an interest in the pension by virtue of the change in federal law. The trial judge, however, correctly observed that one is presumed to know the law, e.g., Diegel v. City of West Fargo, 546 N.W.2d 367, 373 (N.D.1996), and Irene is thus presumed to have known of the change in federal law from the time the change was made and published, which was apparently sometime in the 1980s. Accordingly, in light of the circumstances of this case, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found twenty-one years to be an unreasonable time to grant relief from a judgment.
II Jurisdiction
[¶ 17] The second issue on appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction sufficient to modify the original spousal support order. This is a question of law, and therefore fully reviewable by this Court. See Allied Mutual Ins. Co. v. Director of North Dakota Department of Transportation, 1999 ND 2, ¶ 5 n. 1, 589 N.W.2d 201.
[¶ 18] This Court has explained “[i]f trial courts find no immediate need for awarding permanent spousal support, they should retain jurisdiction to do so beyond a temporary award, when facing uncertainty about the need for permanent support” thereby “leaving the award open for later modification.” van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93, 101 (N.D.1994).
 [¶ 19] When there has been an initial award of spousal support, however, the trial courts retain jurisdiction and may modify the award “[a]t least as long as spousal support continues.” See Quamme v. Bellino, 540 N.W.2d 142, 147 (N.D.1995). “If circumstances merit, before the rehabilitative spousal support ends, [one] may apply for further spousal support, or for reservation of jurisdiction over the issue.” Id.
[¶ 20] In the present case the trial court did not retain jurisdiction within the divorce decree, nor is spousal support *199currently being paid. Under these facts the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify the spousal support payments at this late date.
[¶ 21] The order denying the motion is affirmed.
[¶ 22] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., DALE V. SANDSTROM and WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, JJ., concur.