Carkuff v. Balmer
2011 ND 60
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Daniel and Sharrie Stephenson married in 1983 and had two children who are now adults.
- They previously divorced in 1994; Sharrie was awarded 25% of Daniel's DOD pension; the agreement was incorporated into the judgment.
- The couple remarried in 1997; Sharrie did not receive payments under the 1994 pension portion.
- They separated in 2005; Daniel filed for divorce in 2008; the district court adopted the 1994 judgment and Sharrie’s proposed asset division.
- In 2009–2010 the court awarded Sharrie $90,000 as an equity adjustment, $3,000 monthly permanent spousal support, and $10,000 in attorney’s fees, with Daniel receiving most retirement assets.
- On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed spousal support and attorney’s fees, reversed the property distribution as inequitable, and remanded for an equitable division of the marital estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the retirement-assets valuation and overall property division equitable? | Stephenson contends the retirement value was misstated and the division favored Daniel. | Stephenson argues the court properly valued assets and fairly divided the estate under Ruff-Fischer. | Property division reversed; remanded for equitable distribution. |
| Did adopting the 1994 judgment and awarding 25% of the DOD pension create an improper, res judicata-influenced division? | Stephenson asserts 25% of the pension from the 1994 judgment should apply, and the 1994 judgment remains controlling. | Stephenson argues remarriage subjects all assets to new equitable distribution and the 1994 judgment no longer applies. | Court held the 1994 judgment was improperly adopted; prior award could not govern the divorce; remand required. |
| Is the spousal-support award consistent with Ruff-Fischer and the parties’ incomes? | Stephenson seeks a larger award given her disadvantaged status and prior support. | Stephenson argues the court adequately applied Ruff-Fischer and Daniel’s ability to pay. | Spousal support affirmed; remanded for potential adjustment with reallocation on remand. |
| Did the district court abuse discretion in attorney’s fees award? | Stephenson contends a larger fee award was warranted given her needs and other party's ability to pay. | Stephenson argues the award balanced need and ability to pay without abuse of discretion. | Attorney’s fees award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorenz v. Lorenz, 2007 ND 49, 729 N.W.2d 692 (ND 2007) (successive marriages require inclusion of retirement assets for equitable distribution)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 2010 ND 100, 783 N.W.2d 262 (ND 2010) ( Ruff-Fischer factors and valuation guidance for property division)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 1998 ND 176, 584 N.W.2d 527 (ND 1998) (remarriage converts preexisting pensions to marital assets)
- Reineke v. Reineke, 2003 ND 167, 670 N.W.2d 841 (ND 2003) (spousal support may bridge disparities when property division cannot)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (ND 1952) (Ruff-Fischer framework for property division and need to explain disparity)
- Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58, 746 N.W.2d 732 (ND 2008) (totality of property and equitable distribution considerations)