799 N.W.2d 53
N.D.2011Background
- Ricky Becker sought divorce from Jill Becker; district court awarded Jill spousal support and ordered Jill to pay child support.
- Parties own Spa D’Athena and several entities; Ricky’s income from medical practice and related fees was substantial.
- Trial court averaged Ricky’s income, including alleged consulting/surgical fees, and found spousal support appropriate with a downward deviation for child support.
- Court ordered Jill to pay $2,000 monthly child support for four children, and spousal support to Jill for life unless remarriage or death.
- On appeal, Ricky challenged income calculations, child support derivations, and the spousal support award.
- Appellate court partly reverses: affirms spousal support, reverses child support calculation, remands for net-income determinations and proper guideline application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court properly calculate net incomes for child and spousal support? | Becker contends income findings were erroneous and incomplete. | Becker argues court misapplied tax/receipts and failed to reflect true earnings. | Remand for proper net-income findings and guideline application. |
| Whether the court properly applied child support guidelines and determined Jill's net income | Becker claims Jill’s income was miscomputed; downward deviation requires clear net income findings. | Becker contends guidelines were not properly applied and deviations improperly granted. | Reversal to require explicit net-income calculation under guidelines. |
| Whether Jill Becker’s income should be imputed or considered self-employment | Imputation should reflect earnings potential given unemployment/underemployment factors. | Jill’s self-employment income from Spa D’Athena must be considered; imputation depends on earning capacity. | Remand for proper imputation analysis under applicable rules. |
| Whether permanent spousal support was justified or should have been rehabilitative | Permanent support is warranted to address long-term disparity. | Rehabilitative support or shorter duration more appropriate given earning ability and education. | Affirmed; court’s findings support permanent spousal support but remanded for guideline consistency. |
| Should spousal support end upon Jill’s cohabitation? | Cohabitation could justify modification/removal of support. | Cohabitation is not treated as a trigger to terminate support. | No error; cohabitation does not require termination of support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (ND) (spousal support standards; Ruff-Fischer factors)
- Lauer v. Lauer, 2000 ND 82 (ND) (clear error standard for income findings)
- Montgomery v. Montgomery, 2003 ND 135 (ND) (income finding as a fact)
- Heinle v. Heinle, 2010 ND 5 (ND) (proper application of child support guidelines)
- Halberg v. Halberg, 2010 ND 20 (ND) (net income determination under guidelines)
- Gunia v. Gunia, 2009 ND 32 (ND) (requirement to state net income calculations)
- Sack v. Sack, 2006 ND 57 (ND) (disadvantaged spouse doctrine context)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952) (ND) (Ruff-Fischer factors framework)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (ND) (Ruff-Fischer lineage)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 33 (ND) (rehabilitative vs permanent spousal support)
- Moilan v. Moilan, 1999 ND 103 (ND) (economic considerations in maintenance)
- Nugent v. Nugent, 152 N.W.2d 323 (ND) (historical alimony framework)
- Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (U.S.) (gender-based alimony implications)