Allmon v. Allmon
2017 ND 122
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Angela and Aaron Allmon married in May 2013; one child born later that year. Both had military ties; Angela left a 16‑year military career to follow Aaron.
- Domestic violence and a military conviction against Aaron occurred during the marriage; he retained pension/benefits eligibility.
- Angela filed for divorce November 2014; an interim hearing in Feb 2015 set primary issues (including child support of $907/month) and permitted relocation stipulations.
- Aaron disengaged from the litigation: counsel withdrew, he failed discovery, was sanctioned, and did not appear at the July 2016 trial (Angela participated remotely from Germany).
- The district court awarded Angela primary residential responsibility, ordered Aaron to pay $907/month child support (the interim amount), awarded each party property in their possession, ordered Aaron to pay Angela $25,000, and denied spousal support and attorney fees to Angela.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed most rulings but reversed and remanded the child support award for failure to apply the Guidelines’ imputation/increase rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property division — failure to divide military retirement | Allmon: court should divide/impute part of Aaron’s military pension/retirement to achieve equitable distribution | Aaron (effectively): no reliable evidence presented at trial proving current retirement/disability amounts | Affirmed — court’s detailed Ruff‑Fischer analysis supported dividing present property/debts and $25,000 payment; no clear error given lack of substantiated military pay records |
| Spousal support — denial of award | Allmon: entitled to support given she left military and lost benefits | Aaron: (implicitly) argues no need/ability, and brief marriage | Affirmed — court reasonably denied spousal support given short marriage, Angela’s education/employment, and lack of need; not clearly erroneous |
| Child support — use of interim figure without increase | Allmon: district court misapplied Guidelines; trial court should have increased interim support when obligor failed to provide current income | Aaron: did not appear or provide updated income; court continued interim figure | Reversed — error of law: Guidelines require imputing income or increasing previous net income by 10% when obligor fails to provide reliable income information; remanded for recalculation |
| Attorney fees — denial under N.D.C.C. § 14‑05‑23 | Allmon: should be awarded fees because Aaron’s conduct drove costs and impeded progress | Aaron: no reliable income evidence to show ability to pay; some fees resulted from Angela’s own litigation choices | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; denied fees due to negative marital estate, short marriage, lack of proof of Aaron’s ability to pay, and findings that Angela’s strategy increased fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Gabaldon‑Cochran v. Cochran, 868 N.W.2d 501 (N.D. 2015) (district court must value and equitably divide entire marital estate)
- Rebel v. Rebel, 833 N.W.2d 442 (N.D. 2013) (Ruff‑Fischer guideline list and requirement to specify rationale)
- Kosobud v. Kosobud, 817 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 2012) (factors for spousal support and property division considerations)
- Feist v. Feist, 862 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2015) (inequality in division must be explained; standard of review for property distribution)
- Grossman v. Lerud, 857 N.W.2d 92 (N.D. 2014) (standards of review for child support determinations)
- Schurmann v. Schurmann, 877 N.W.2d 20 (N.D. 2016) (court cannot rely on inaccurate/incomplete income information for child support)
- Heinle v. Heinle, 777 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 2010) (distinguishing sanctions under court’s inherent power/Rule 11 from fee awards under § 14‑05‑23)