## Facts

- Marilyn Grave and Elliot Shubert divorced in Minnesota district court in 1993 and had two children.
- The dissolution judgment granted Grave physical custody and awarded Shubert parenting time.
- The Minnesota court ordered Shubert to pay child support, but he did not consistently pay and accrued arrears.
- Shubert moved to England.
- In 1998, Shubert sought relief in an English court to reduce his child-support obligation and to reduce or forgive arrears.
- Grave did not respond or appear in the English proceeding, and the English court entered an order reducing support and arrears.
- A Minnesota county child-support agency assisted Grave with collection and located two Shubert retirement accounts in the United States.
- In 1999, the county agency moved in Minnesota district court to reduce Shubert’s arrears to judgment and to sequester the U.S. retirement funds to satisfy the arrears.
- Shubert received notice of the Minnesota motion but did not respond or appear; the court granted the requested relief.
- Months later, Shubert moved the Minnesota district court to review the order, arguing the English order was “newly discovered evidence” and should affect the arrears; he did not register the English order in Minnesota.
- The district court denied Shubert’s post-judgment motions, and Shubert appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Minnesota district court had authority to reduce child-support arrears to judgment and order sequestration of Shubert’s U.S.-based retirement funds, despite Shubert’s residence in England.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Shubert’s post-judgment motion seeking relief based on the English modification order as “newly discovered evidence.”
3. Whether an unregistered foreign (English) support order could be relied on in Minnesota to affect enforcement of Minnesota arrears.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held the district court had authority to enforce the Minnesota support obligation by reducing arrears to judgment and ordering sequestration of Shubert’s reachable U.S. assets.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-judgment relief based on the English order.
- The court concluded the English order was not properly presented for effect in Minnesota because Shubert did not register it in Minnesota.
- The court rejected Shubert’s attempt to treat the English order as “newly discovered evidence” warranting reopening of the enforcement orders.

## Legal Principles

- Minnesota courts retain authority to enforce their child-support orders, including by reducing arrears to judgment.
- A Minnesota court may employ post-judgment enforcement remedies, including sequestration of assets subject to the court’s reach, to satisfy a support judgment.
- Relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence is discretionary and generally requires diligence and a showing the evidence would likely change the result; evidence available earlier or not properly presented may not justify reopening.
- A foreign support order generally must be registered through the applicable statutory procedure before a Minnesota court will treat it as effective in Minnesota enforcement or modification proceedings.
- Accrued child-support obligations are enforceable as arrears, and a party cannot avoid enforcement of Minnesota arrears by pointing to an unregistered foreign order.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Minnesota enforcement orders reducing Shubert’s child-support arrears to judgment and sequestering his U.S. retirement funds, and it upheld denial of Shubert’s post-judgment motion because the English modification order was not registered in Minnesota and did not provide a proper basis to reopen the Minnesota arrears judgment.


Grave v. Shubert, 2000 WL 1221343 (2000)