STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In re the Marriage of:
Anita C. Liebscher, petitioner,
Gary F. Liebscher,
Filed December 21, 1999
Affirmed; Motion Denied
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 200722
Richard D. Goff, Richard D. Goff & Associates, 3908 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Gary F. Liebscher)
A. Larry Katz, Brian L. Sobol, Katz & Manka, Ltd., 4150 U.S. Bank Place, 601 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Anita C. Liebscher)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Harten, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals following a remand by this court, Gary Liebscher alleges the district court violated the remand instructions by awarding certain property to Anita Liebscher and Anita Liebscher alleges the remand instructions improperly required the district court to divide the marital property inequitably. We affirm the district court and deny Gary Liebscher's motion to submit additional written argument.
execute the mandate of [the appellate court] strictly according to its terms. The trial court has no power to alter, amend, or modify [the appellate court's] mandate.
Halverson v. Village of Deerwood, 322 N.W.2d 761, 766 (Minn. 1982) (citation omitted); see Duffey v. Duffey, 432 N.W.2d 473, 476 (Minn. App. 1988) (citing Halverson in a dissolution matter).
Gary Liebscher argues that because issues involving security for maintenance and fees were not remanded to the district court, they were not properly before the district court and cannot be used to justify an award of the Florida property to Anita Liebscher. We disagree. While issues decided in an appeal become "law of the case" and may not be relitigated in the trial court or a later appeal, that prohibition applies only to litigated issues and does not apply to issues that were not litigated. Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 448 N.W.2d 62, 66 (Minn. 1989).
Here, the propriety of awarding Anita Liebscher security for Gary Liebscher's obligations was not addressed in the prior opinion. Therefore, the district court did not lose the ability to address that issue. Moreover, we conclude the district court's manner of addressing the issue was within its discretion. See Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd. 1 (1998) (stating when attorney fees are awarded, district court may authorize their collection by any manner within court's power, including from sequestered property); Minn. Stat. § 518.24 (1998) (stating when maintenance is not paid, district court may sequester obligor's estate); see also Peterson v. Peterson, 304 Minn. 578, 580-81, 231 N.W.2d 85, 87 (1975) (affirming, as within district court's discretion under Minn. Stat. § 518.24, order requiring party to pay attorney fees and maintenance arrears from savings account and sequestering balance of account to secure future payments). We conclude the district court did not exceed its authority.
Affirmed; motion denied.