Dieterle v. Dieterle
830 N.W.2d 571
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Angela Dieterle and Shannon Dieterle married on February 20, 2009; Angela had three older children from prior relationships.
- The couple purchased a ranch and had a daughter; they experienced a domestic altercation in July 2011 leading to Angela's simple assault conviction.
- Shannon earned about $70,000 per year; Angela was self-employed as a freight broker and horse trainer/breeder.
- A trial awarded Shannon primary residential responsibility for the child, ordered child support, and directed a parenting plan via a parenting coordinator.
- Marital property was divided with the ranch sale proceeds to be shared equally; the marriage was very short, affecting the asset distribution.
- Angela was awarded rehabilitative spousal support of $750 per month for 12 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary residential responsibility | Dieterle contends the district court erred in awarding Shannon primary residential responsibility. | Dieterle argues best-interest factors were not properly applied or explained. | Court affirmed Shannon's primary residential responsibility; findings supported by the record. |
| Use of a parenting coordinator | Dieterle argues delegation to a parenting coordinator was improper delegation of judicial power. | Dieterle argues the court failed to act on objections to the plan. | Remanded to issue a compliant parenting plan; not an improper delegation per se. |
| Marital property and debt distribution | Dieterle claims the distribution and valuation were erroneous and failed to address Ruff-Fischer factors. | Dieterle asserts court should have more explicitly applied Ruff-Fischer guidelines. | Distribution not clearly erroneous; court considered short marriage and contributions; equity supported. |
| Spousal support | Dieterle argues rehabilitative support amount/duration inadequate. | Dieterle contends court should award differing terms or amounts. | Rehabilitative spousal support not clearly erroneous given circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammeren v. Hammeren, 2012 ND 225 (ND 2012) (best-interest factors guide custody determinations)
- Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248 (ND 2012) (broad discretion in best-interest factors)
- Martiré v. Martiré, 2012 ND 197 (ND 2012) (standard for reviewing custody findings)
- Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228 (ND 2012) (sufficiency of findings and understanding the factual basis)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (ND 2010) (consideration of domestic violence in custody orders)
- Wessman v. Wessman, 2008 ND 62 (ND 2008) (evidence-based credibility considerations in custody)
- Crandall v. Crandall, 2011 ND 136 (ND 2011) (Ruff-Fischer factors in property division)
- Keita v. Keita, 2012 ND 234 (ND 2012) (equitable division scope; short vs long marriage)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (ND 1952) (factors for property division in divorce)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (ND 1966) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines for property division)
- Interest of S.R.L., 2013 ND 32, 827 N.W.2d 324 (ND 2013) (best-interest factors and parenting plans)