The husband brought a motion under rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside a consent order resolving equalization issues on the basis of alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the wife's net family property disclosure.
The court reviewed multiple challenged items, including the valuation of the matrimonial home, a condominium interest, alleged debts, vehicle valuation, omitted bank accounts, and household contents.
The court held that the husband failed to establish fraud, intentional misrepresentation, or lack of disclosure sufficient to set aside the consent order and had not exercised due diligence prior to entering the agreement.
The court also declined to exercise its discretionary authority under rule 59.06 due to delay and the husband's own incomplete disclosure.
Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the husband due to unproven allegations of fraud.
