Conzemius v. Conzemius
2014 ND 5
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Trista and Chad Conzemius married in 1994 and have one child born in 1997; child has lived primarily with Trista.
- Father is frequently away; mother has flexible hours; father’s income from Wayne’s Electric and Schiele Mobility is contested.
- October 2011: Trista filed for divorce; after bench trial, district court awarded Trista primary residential responsibility, ordered child support of $1,145/month, denied spousal support, and distributed marital property with equalizing payment and attorneys’ fees.
- District court considered best-interest factors, including factor g (health) and factor i (child’s mature preference), and awarded the father six weeks of summer parenting time with a May 15 notice deadline.
- Value and distribution of Schiele Mobility were contested; 2011 valuation by Sliwoski used, with 2012 distributions treated as Chad’s share; tax consequences of future withdrawals were not applied.
- On cross-appeal, Chad challenged inclusion of $40,500 2012 Schiele Mobility distributions in the marital estate; court treated them as marital assets distributed to Chad; affirmed overall property division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the father’s extended summer parenting time supported by the record? | Conzemius argues time should be reduced due to safety/alcohol concerns. | Court properly weighed best-interest factors and implemented a workable summer schedule. | Not clearly erroneous; affirm. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a second interview of the child on parenting-time preference? | Mother requested another interview to reassess child’s preference. | Court acted within discretion, noting emotional state and sufficient information already gathered. | No abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
| Was the marital-property division, including Schiele Mobility, correctly valued and allocated, and were tax considerations appropriate? | Tax effects of pre-tax and future withdrawals should be considered; future value of Schiele Mobility should be treated carefully. | Valuation supported by record; 2012 distributions treated as Chad’s; tax consequences were properly limited to current, not future, events. | Not clearly erroneous; affirmed. |
| Did the district court err in failing to award spousal support based on Ruff-Fischer guidelines? | Spousal support should be permanent given long marriage and income potential from Schiele Mobility. | Future distributions are too uncertain to support permanent spousal support. | Not clearly erroneous as to denial; majority; concurrence argues legal error requiring remand. |
| Did the district court abuse attorney’s-fees discretion in awarding fees to Trista? | Fees should reflect fault or disproportionate conduct by Chad. | Court properly weighed property, income, and conduct; decision not abusive. | Not abused; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krueger v. Krueger, 2011 ND 134 (ND Supreme Court 2011) (visitation best interest standard; clearly erroneous review)
- Dschaak v. Dschaak, 479 N.W.2d 484 (N.D. 1992) (extended visitation presumptively in child’s best interest)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (ND 2010) (custody decisions defer to district court; avoid reweighing credibility)
- Kaiser v. Kaiser, 474 N.W.2d 63 (ND 1991) (consider tax effects in divorce only when certain to occur soon)
- Becker v. Becker, 2011 ND 107 (ND Supreme Court 2011) (earning ability vs. net child-support income; Ruff-Fischer factors implied)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775 (ND Supreme Court 1952) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines foundational to spousal support)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (ND Supreme Court 1966) (Ruff-Fischer framework for spousal support)
- Grinaker v. Grinaker, 553 N.W.2d 204 (ND 1996) (abuse of discretion standard; articulate reasoning required)