## Facts

- Kevin Richter (husband) and Barbara Richter (wife) were married in 1983.
- The parties separated.
- In September 1999, Barbara filed a petition to dissolve the marriage, alleging an irretrievable breakdown.
- Kevin contested the petition and later proceeded pro se after his attorney was allowed to withdraw.
- In April 2000, Kevin moved to dismiss, arguing (among other things) that there was no irretrievable breakdown and that marriage is a contract protected from impairment by the federal and Minnesota Contract Clauses.
- A May 8, 2000 date had been set in the case, and Kevin’s motion papers indicated his motion “would be heard on May 8.”
- On April 26, 2000, the district court issued an order dismissing Kevin’s motion and stating that “the hearing set for May 8 was cancelled.”
- Two days later, Barbara’s attorney wrote Kevin, stating that the canceled May 8 event was the hearing on Kevin’s motion, not the dissolution hearing.
- On May 3, 2000, Kevin wrote the court administrator requesting notice of any rescheduling and asking for a continuance.
- On May 5, 2000, the district court issued an order clarifying that the dissolution hearing would proceed on May 8.
- Also on May 5, the court administrator received a fax and call from an attorney who said he was negotiating to represent Kevin, had not been retained, and would need a 60-day continuance.
- At the May 8 hearing, Kevin appeared pro se and requested a continuance; the district court denied the request.
- Kevin then withdrew from the courtroom and did not participate further; the district court heard only Barbara’s testimony.
- Barbara testified that the marriage had irretrievably broken down; based on that record, the district court found irretrievable breakdown and granted the dissolution.
- An amended dissolution judgment was entered on May 26, 2000.
- The district court denied Kevin’s posttrial motion, and Kevin appealed.

## Issues

1. Does Minnesota’s dissolution statute permit “divorce on demand,” or must a finding of irretrievable breakdown be based on evidence?
2. Is marriage a “contract” protected by the federal and Minnesota Contract Clauses such that Minnesota’s dissolution statutes unconstitutionally impair contractual obligations?
3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Kevin’s continuance request and proceeding with the dissolution hearing after he withdrew from the courtroom?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the dissolution judgment and the denial of Kevin’s posttrial motion.
- The court held that Minnesota’s no-fault dissolution scheme does not allow divorce merely on request; it requires an evidentiary finding of irretrievable breakdown, and Barbara’s testimony provided sufficient support on this record.
- The court rejected Kevin’s Contract Clause argument, concluding that marriage is not treated as a contract for Contract Clause purposes and remains subject to legislative control through dissolution statutes.
- The court held that denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion where the district court clarified the hearing date before trial, Kevin had notice and appeared, and he chose not to participate after the continuance was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Minnesota’s dissolution statutes require a finding of “irretrievable breakdown,” and that finding must be supported by evidence; the statute does not create divorce solely on demand.
- Unrebutted testimony from one spouse may be enough to support a finding of irretrievable breakdown when the other spouse declines to present evidence.
- For Contract Clause purposes, marriage is a civil status subject to legislative regulation, not a private contract insulated from changes in dissolution law.
- Rulings on continuances are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a party’s late effort to retain counsel and voluntary nonparticipation do not, by themselves, require postponement of a scheduled dissolution hearing when adequate notice is provided.

## Conclusion

Richter v. Richter affirmed a no-fault dissolution entered after the wife testified to an irretrievable breakdown and the husband, appearing pro se, withdrew from the hearing following denial of his continuance request. The court held that Minnesota law requires evidence of irretrievable breakdown (which was supplied by the wife’s unchallenged testimony), that marriage is not a contract protected by the Contract Clauses, and that the district court acted within its discretion in proceeding with the scheduled hearing.


Richter v. Richter, 625 N.W.2d 490 (2001)