Opinion
A24-0432
09-24-2024
Galen Tronnes, Respondent, v. Valerie Tronnes, Appellant, Vickie Mjelde, Defendant, Angie Rhoads, Defendant.
Norman County District Court File No. 54-CV-20-217
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Randall J. Slieter Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. This litigation involves the sale of property pursuant to a partition action to one of four siblings. Most of the issues raised by appellant have already been addressed by this court in Tronnes v. Tronnes, No. A23-0024 (Minn.App. July 12, 2023) (order op.) (Tronnes I). Because the only issue that has not previously been resolved by this court's 2023 opinion is the district court's order requiring that appellant pay respondent's attorney fees, and the district court was well within its discretion to order such fees, we affirm.
2. Vernon Tronnes, in 2005, conveyed property located in Norman County, Minnesota, by quitclaim deed to his children-appellant Valerie Tronnes, respondent Galen Tronnes, and two other siblings-as tenants-in-common. In 2020, Galen commenced a partition action, seeking a sale of the property. Ultimately, the district court granted Galen's petition to sell the property and for Galen to purchase the one-fourth share of each of the other owners, including Valerie, for $58,750. In Tronnes I, we concluded that the district court acted within its discretion to grant Galen's petition pursuant to the referee's recommendation and valuation. Id. We also concluded that the district court acted within its discretion to deny Valerie's motion for an evidentiary hearing.
Because appellant, respondent, and their father share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first names.
3. In September 2023, following the release of our opinion in Tronnes I, the parties learned that Valerie's attorney filed an attorney lien against the property for attorney fees in the amount of $8,523.25. As a result, and to finalize his purchase, Galen offered to satisfy the lien, deducting the lien amount from the purchase price of the property. Still, Valerie refused to sign the quitclaim deed, satisfy the lien herself, or allow Galen to satisfy the lien and deduct the amount from the purchase price. Upon Galen's motion, the district court ordered Galen to satisfy the attorney lien and deduct the amount paid to satisfy the lien from Valerie's share of the purchase price. The district court further ordered that Galen deduct his attorney fees of $4,949.94 from the amount owed to Valerie. The district court, therefore, determined that, after deducting amounts paid to satisfy the attorney lien and Galen's attorney fees, Galen owed Valerie $45,276 for her one-fourth share of the property. And, because Valerie continued to refuse to sign the quitclaim deed, the district court ordered transfer of the property via a certified copy of its judgment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 507.26 (2022).
4. Valerie appeals the district court's decision to award Galen attorney fees. In partition actions, "[t]he costs, charges, and disbursements of partition shall be paid by the parties respectively entitled to share in the land, and the amounts to be paid by each shall be determined by the court, and specified in the final judgment." Minn. Stat. § 558.10 (2022). Interpreting this statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a district court may, in its discretion, award attorney fees to the plaintiff when the partition of the property benefits all parties. Kuller v. Kuller, 109 N.W.2d 561, 563 (Minn. 1961). But attorney fees should not be awarded in good-faith partition actions against a party that does not receive a benefit from the partition. Hanson v. Ingwaldson, 87 N.W. 915, 915 (Minn. 1901). Appellate courts review a district court's assessment of fees and costs in a partition action for an abuse of discretion. See Kuller, 109 N.W.2d at 564.
5. Valerie challenges the district court's determination that she acted with bad faith by refusing to comply with court orders and engaging in delay tactics. She suggests that she was not delaying and would have signed the quitclaim deed, but after she first received payment. In addressing the issue, the district court explained:
After the Court of Appeals denied her appeal, Valerie was obligated to accept payment and sign the [quitclaim] deed. She is also obligated to either pay her attorney's fees so as to release
the lien placed on her interest in the Property or allow Galen to satisfy the attorneys' lien out of the proceeds due Valerie. Yet she refuses to do so.
The district court's determination that Valerie acted in bad faith by refusing to comply with court orders is supported by the record.
6. Valerie also claims that she is not benefitting from the partition and, therefore, it was error to award Galen attorney fees. Although Valerie may not have gotten what she wanted, she provides no authority suggesting that she has not benefitted from the partition despite collecting an equal share of the sale proceeds. Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944) ("[O]n appeal[,] error is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.").
7. Valerie appears to question whether the attorney-fee award is excessive under Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023) (concluding that a county's retention of the excess proceeds from the sale of property is a taking without just compensation). This claim was not raised below and is, therefore, not properly before this court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
8. For the first time on appeal, Valerie claims that, by denying her request for an evidentiary hearing, she was denied due process. Because the issue was not raised below (nor in her first appeal), we do not consider it here. Id.; see also In re Welfare of C.L.L., 310 N.W.2d 555, 557 (Minn. 1981) (noting that appellate courts generally will not consider constitutional issues not raised below).
Valerie also raises additional issues that were decided in her first appeal to this court, including a challenge to the purchase price and rental income, and her request to set aside the referee's report. These issues have already been decided. Tronnes I, No. A23-0024.We affirmed the district court's judgment, the factual basis and parties are the same, and Valerie had a fair opportunity to challenge the district court's judgment during her first appeal. See Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 837 (Minn. 2004) (observing the principle that an adjudicated claim cannot be relitigated between the same parties). We, therefore, do not consider the issues here.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.