Opinion
No. C3-95-2622.
Filed July 2, 1996.
Appeal from the District Court, Polk County, File No. F2-92-1053.
Shirley Dvorak, Moosegrugger, Dvorak, Carter, P.L.L.P., (for appellant).
Thomas V. Omdahl, Omdahl Terry, (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Willis, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In a dissolution appeal appellant Terri Lynn Andringa, argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied her claims for attorney fees, recovery of lost equity in the homestead, and the escrow of future property settlement payments. We affirm.
DECISION I.
The discretion to allow attorney fees rests almost entirely with the district court. Kirby v. Kirby , 348 N.W.2d 392, 394 (Minn.App. 1984). Minn. Stat. § 518.14 subd. 1 (1994) states:
[T]he court shall award attorney fees, costs, and disbursements in an amount necessary to enable a party to carry on or contest the proceeding, provided it finds:
(1) that the fees are necessary for the good-faith assertion of the party's rights in the proceeding and will not contribute unnecessarily to the length and expense of the proceeding;
(2) that the party from whom fees, costs, and disburse ments are sought has the means to pay them; and
(3) that the party to whom fees, costs, and disbursements are awarded does not have the means to pay them.
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to award her attorney fees. The record does not support a finding that appellant was unable to pay her own attorney fees. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record indicating that respondent had the ability to pay appellant's attorney fees. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for an award of attorney fees.
II.
Appellant also argues that the district court erred when it denied her motions for an order directing respondent to compensate her for the loss of equity in the homestead because of foreclosure. The district court however, specifically stated that the foreclosure "went into effect primarily because [appellant] has neglected to make the necessary mortgage payments or make arrangements with the mortgagee" and that appellant "chose to commit waste by refusing to abide by the court's order." There is nothing in Minn. Stat. § 518.14 or Minnesota law which, under these circumstances, requires reimbursement. Likewise, no authority requires the court to compel respondent to place future property settlement payments in an escrow account. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motions.