799 N.W.2d 388
N.D.2011Background
- Chad Crandall and Heidi Crandall divorced after a 1995 marriage with three minor children; trial occurred in September 2010.
- Chad worked for Bobcat in Gwinner; Heidi operated a day-care facility in Gwinner; district court awarded Chad primary residential responsibility for the children.
- The court ordered Chad to pay Heidi $680 per month in child support, beginning December 10, 2010, after considering guidelines and time with the children.
- Marital estate was distributed: Chad received about $44,244.99 of property; Heidi received $42,701; debts to Heidi were $51,681.48 and to Chad $46,978.98.
- Chad sought to stay child support pending appeal; the district court denied the stay.
- Heidi cross-appealed, challenging the property distribution as not equitable and alleging improper asset treatment; Chad did not appeal the primary custodial arrangement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chad must pay child support to Heidi under the guidelines | Chad argues custodial parent pays; guidelines do not support paying to noncustodial parent. | Heidi argues deviation permitted under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2)(j) due to changed circumstances and time with children. | The court erred; child support must be paid by noncustodial to custodial; reversed and remanded for guideline-based calculation. |
| Whether deviation from guidelines was properly justified on the record | District court acted within discretion to deviate based on guideline considerations. | Deviation allowed only with explicit findings; no adequate explanation exists on the record. | Deviation not supported by the record; remand for proper findings under the guidelines. |
| Whether the district court adequately found income/net income for support calculation | Court considered guidelines; Chad's income used to determine support amount. | Court failed to identify either party’s net income or make requisite income determinations. | Insufficient findings on net income; remand for proper calculation under guidelines. |
| Whether the property division was equitable | Division reflects mismanagement/dissipation by Heidi; Chad’s 401(k) allocation appropriate. | Property division should be explained with Ruff-Fischer factors; Heidi disputes the amounts and rationale. | Property distribution affirmed as not clearly erroneous; dissenters would remand for clearer explanation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchholz v. Buchholz, 590 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1999) (clear findings required; recitation of guidelines is insufficient)
- Richter v. Houser, 598 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 1999) (equal custody considerations; offset provisions)
- Dalin v. Dalin, 545 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 1996) (guidelines contemplate noncustodial paying custodial parent)
- Brakke v. Brakke, 525 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. 1994) (noncustodial support obligation in context of custodial arrangement)
- Ulsaker v. White, 760 N.W.2d 82 (N.D. 2009) (long-term marriage supports equal distribution; need for adequate findings)