987 N.W.2d 666
N.D.2023Background
- Crichlow (married 2013) filed for divorce in August 2020; the parties agreed the valuation date was the date Andrews was served with the summons, August 28, 2020.
- Andrews disclosed six accounts existing on or near the valuation date totaling $42,324.61.
- After the valuation date Andrews opened three Wealthfront accounts in December 2020 totaling $65,538.61; he said these funds were from rolling an old 401(k) and earnings after the complaint.
- Crichlow had a pre‑marriage medical school debt of $334,726 from attending school in Trinidad and Tobago.
- The district court included Crichlow’s medical school debt and Andrews’s Wealthfront accounts in the marital estate, awarded Crichlow the marital home and mortgage, equally divided marital equity, and awarded Andrews a $21,695 equalization payment.
- Andrews appealed, arguing the court erred by including assets acquired after the valuation date and raising other distribution issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crichlow) | Defendant's Argument (Andrews) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether accounts opened after the valuation date (Wealthfront accounts) may be included in the marital estate | Include the accounts in the marital estate | Accounts opened Dec 2020 are non‑marital because they were acquired after the Aug 28, 2020 valuation date | Reversed: court erred to include post‑valuation accounts; remanded to exclude accounts that did not exist on valuation date |
| Whether Crichlow’s pre‑marriage medical school debt should be included in the marital estate | Include the debt in the marital estate and assign repayment to Crichlow | Argued by Andrews that the debt should not be included | Affirmed: debt may be included in the marital estate; court did not clearly err in assigning responsibility to Crichlow |
| Whether awarding the marital home to Crichlow was error | Award home to Crichlow (she remained in residence; no request by Andrews) | Argued error in distribution | Affirmed on current record but may be reconsidered on remand when estate is redetermined |
Key Cases Cited
- Willprecht v. Willprecht, 941 N.W.2d 556 (N.D. 2020) (standard of review for property distribution and Ruff‑Fischer guideline framework)
- Berdahl v. Berdahl, 977 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2022) (court may not include property acquired after agreed valuation date)
- Wald v. Wald, 947 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2020) (post‑valuation assets are not subject to division)
- Lee v. Lee, 927 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 2019) (describing Ruff‑Fischer factors for equitable distribution)
- Neidviecky v. Neidviecky, 657 N.W.2d 255 (N.D. 2003) (all assets and debts should be considered when dividing marital estate)
- Feist v. Feist, 862 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2015) (separate property may be included in the marital estate and its origin considered in allocation)