Datz v. Dosch, 2013 ND 148

Kurt Datz and Helen Dosch (married 1988) separated after long-term marital problems including Datz’s admitted affairs, significant travel, business closures, and disputed missing medical equipment; they have three children, two minors at trial (ages 18 and 15).
Dosch worked intermittently in Fargo (often 2 weeks on/2 weeks off or longer stints) and the parties employed nannies; Datz worked locally and traveled for business ventures.
In 2011 Datz closed medical spas without consulting Dosch, stopped loan repayments, and spent marital funds on an affair; Dosch was arrested after a confrontation with Datz and his partner.
The district court awarded Dosch primary residential responsibility, found Datz at fault (economic and non‑economic), awarded divorce on adultery grounds, set property valuations and distributions, and ordered Datz to pay child support and half the nanny costs.
On appeal the Court reversed the primary residential responsibility award for inadequate, non‑specific findings applying the statutory best‑interest factors, affirmed findings on fault, adultery, and most property valuations, and remanded for proper findings and related reconsideration of support/nanny cost issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Datz)	Defendant's Argument (Dosch)	Held
Adequacy of custodial findings / primary residential responsibility	Trial court failed to make specific findings connecting evidence to each N.D.C.C. §14‑09‑06.2 factor; remand required	Trial court sufficiently considered factors and findings show basis for awarding Dosch custody	Reversed custody award; remanded for detailed findings applying best‑interest factors
Treatment of domestic violence evidence	Court failed to address multiple incidents and did not make specific findings re presumption against a perpetrator	Only one incident met evidentiary confirmation; no pattern, no serious injury or weapon; presumption not triggered	District court’s domestic‑violence findings inadequate; must make specific, detailed findings on effect of incidents and presumption
Property valuation and distribution	Some valuations (building, equipment, businesses) were incorrect or unsupported	District court’s valuations were within the evidence range and credited witness credibility	Affirmed property valuations and distribution findings (not clearly erroneous)
Fault, adultery, and impact on division	Datz argued fault findings or economic waste were unsupported	Trial court found Datz committed adultery and economic/nonsconomic fault (hidden assets, dissipation)	Findings of adultery and fault affirmed as supported by evidence

Wolt v. Wolt, 778 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2010) (trial court must consider all custody factors and make findings with sufficient specificity)
Haroldson v. Haroldson, 813 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 2012) (court must explain how statutory custody factors apply; mere recitation of testimony is insufficient)
Niska v. Falconer, 824 N.W.2d 778 (N.D. 2012) (findings must enable appellate review and show factual basis for conclusions)
Smith v. Martinez, 800 N.W.2d 304 (N.D. 2011) (when domestic violence evidence exists, court must make specific findings about applicability of the presumption)
Boeckel v. Boeckel, 785 N.W.2d 213 (N.D. 2010) (domestic violence findings must be detailed to permit review of presumption treatment)
Wessman v. Wessman, 747 N.W.2d 85 (N.D. 2008) (credible domestic violence evidence heavily influences custody analysis)
Dronen v. Dronen, 764 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 2009) (property valuation is a factual finding reviewed for clear error; court’s valuation upheld if within evidentiary range)
Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 2010) (court may draw reasonable inferences from evidence in fault/adultery findings)
Eberle v. Eberle, 783 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 2010) (owners may testify to real property value; trial court best positioned to assess credibility)
Moilan v. Moilan, 598 N.W.2d 81 (N.D. 1999) (financial determinations in divorce are interrelated and should not be considered in isolation)