AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between two parties over the enforcement of a marital settlement agreement that was memorialized in the transcript of their mediation. After reaching an agreement during mediation, the parties voluntarily dismissed the case. Subsequently, issues arose regarding the enforcement of the settlement agreement, leading to motions filed by both parties to address these enforcement issues.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adopt the transcript of the mediation as the marital settlement agreement and to make it part of the divorce decree after the parties voluntarily dismissed the case (paras 2, 7).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter the order adopting the transcript of the mediation between the parties as the marital settlement agreement and to make it a part of the divorce decree after the parties voluntarily dismissed the case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the petitioner's motion to amend the judgment adopting and attaching the transcript of the parties' mediation as the parties' marital settlement agreement (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge M. Monica Zamora, with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the district court retained jurisdiction over its orders for enforcement purposes. The court noted that the parties had agreed their marital settlement agreement was memorialized by the transcript of their settlement in mediation and that the district court's jurisdiction was repeatedly invoked to enforce its final, controlling orders. The court found that the petitioner's arguments did not demonstrate that the district court lacked jurisdiction and observed that the petitioner's actions, including motions filed, suggested a need for the district court's involvement in enforcing the marital settlement agreement. The court also applied the invited error doctrine, stating that the petitioner could not complain about procedures he himself had requested, including the voluntary dismissal and later reinstatement of the case to enforce the marital settlement agreement (paras 3-11).