Keeping His Word: Thomas’s Fight for Binding Agreements

A Narrative Story of Tornstrom v. Tornstrom, 887 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).

When Thomas Erle Tornstrom* entered mediation with his wife Jennifer in September 2015, he came prepared to find a fair resolution to their divorce. After months of uncertainty and a custody evaluation recommending he receive sole custody of their two children, Thomas was ready to settle and move forward.

The eight-hour mediation session was exhausting, but Thomas remained committed to reaching an agreement serving everyone’s best interests. With both attorneys present and a professional mediator guiding the process, they worked through every detail—custody arrangements, parenting time, financial support, and property division.

When they finally reached a comprehensive settlement, Thomas felt relief. The agreement gave him sole legal and physical custody, with Jennifer having meaningful parenting time. They agreed she wouldn’t pay child support, and he wouldn’t pay spousal maintenance. The property division was fair—Jennifer would receive her 403(b) plan and a portion of his 401K, while he would keep the marital home and pay her an additional settlement.

Most importantly, both parties clearly stated on the mediator’s recording that they understood the terms, couldn’t change their minds, and intended to be bound by the agreement. Thomas believed they had reached a meeting of the minds and could finally provide stability for their children.

But three days later, everything changed. Despite the clear recording and the mediator’s written summary confirming they had “settled all issues in the case,” Jennifer refused to sign the stipulation that would formalize their settlement.

Thomas found himself in an impossible position. He had acted in good faith, already beginning to implement the agreement by refinancing the real estate and preparing to pay Jennifer the agreed-upon settlement. He had relied on their mutual commitment, believing that when two people give their word—especially when recorded and witnessed by professionals—that word should mean something.

When Jennifer tried to back out, claiming she felt pressured and that the mediation wasn’t final, Thomas knew he had to stand firm. This wasn’t just about their divorce—it was about the fundamental principle that agreements made in good faith should be honored.

Thomas moved the district court to enforce their mediated settlement, understanding that allowing people to simply walk away from carefully negotiated agreements would undermine the entire mediation process and leave families in perpetual uncertainty.

The district court agreed with Thomas, finding they had indeed reached a fully mediated settlement under Minnesota law. The court recognized that both parties had consented to having the agreement submitted when they orally recorded their commitment and acknowledged their intent to be bound.

When Jennifer appealed, Thomas faced anxiety about having his victory challenged again. But in November 2016, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, establishing important precedent about the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements.

The court’s ruling clarified that mediated settlements don’t require signed marital termination agreements to be enforceable when parties have clearly consented to be bound. The decision recognized that oral agreements, properly recorded and witnessed, can create binding contracts when all essential elements are present.

Thomas’s perseverance protected not just his family’s stability, but helped establish legal principles strengthening the mediation process for all families. Through his determination to hold Jennifer accountable to their mutual commitment, Thomas showed that integrity in family law matters—that keeping one’s word, even in difficult circumstances, is essential for creating the stability children and families need to heal and move forward.

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: Do any of the ADR or mediation processes used in family law result in decisions that are final and not subject to subsequent challenge?

Answer: These other ADR processes, arbitration and consensual special magistrates (CSMs), are more commonly used when a case involves complex financial circumstances or high asset wealth, but come with the opportunity to lock in the results with the final decisions. See the answers below.

Question: What are arbitration and consensual special magistrates in family law and when are they used?

Answer: Arbitration and consensual special magistrates are special processes used in complex or high-wealth divorce cases that can provide final decisions. These processes allow parties to get binding results that can’t be easily changed later.

Arbitrations are either binding or nonbinding, depending on the parties’ agreement. The parties may select rules to govern the process, and the agreement to arbitrate must set forth those rules. The arbitrator is a finder of fact and can make decisions and awards. Minnesota General Rule of Practice 114.09 governs all arbitration proceedings. The proceeding is not unlike a trial where the issues and evidence are presented by the parties and their attorneys to a neutral third person. Arbitrators are selected by the parties for their expertise and experience with the types of issues in dispute.

Question: What happens if I don’t agree with the arbitrator’s decision in my divorce case?

Answer: If you agreed to binding arbitration, you usually can’t appeal, but you might have 20 days to request a regular trial instead. If you don’t request a trial within that time, the decision becomes final like a court judgment.

If the parties have agreed to binding arbitration, then the decision of the arbitrator is not appealable; however, if one of the parties does not agree to the arbitrator’s decision, that party has the right to request a trial within 20 days after the decision has been filed with the court. If a request for a trial is made, then the court sets the matter on for trial at the earliest possible date or restores the case to the civil calendar and hears the case de novo as if no arbitration had been held. If neither party requests a trial within the 20-day time period, the decision becomes a judgment that has the same force and effect as a judgment in a civil proceeding except that it may not be attacked, set aside, or appealed.

Question: What are consensual special magistrates and can I appeal their decisions?

Answer: Consensual special magistrates are private judges that both parties choose to hear their case like a regular trial. Their decisions are binding but can be appealed to a higher court.

CSMs are private judges selected by the parties to hear all evidence and testimony in a trial-like proceeding. The parties select the rules that will govern the process. The decision rendered is binding on the parties, but it is appealable to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Question: Can I create my own process for resolving my divorce dispute?

Answer: Yes, parties can create their own custom process for resolving disputes, but lawyers need to be very knowledgeable about all the rules and should be careful if they don’t have much family law experience.

Parties may elect to create their own process for resolving their disputes. A lawyer who assists a client in electing a hybrid process must be knowledgeable about all aspects of Minnesota General Rule of Practice 114 and all of the rules, statutes, and practices governing adjudicative and facilitative processes in family law. Lawyers with limited experience in family law should be wary of entering any process with which they are unfamiliar.