Erickson v. Brown
2012 ND 43
| N.D. | 2012Background
- June 2008: parties stipulate to divorce with joint residential responsibility and equal time with three children; Klein pays Haroldson child support offset.
- May 2010: Klein moves to amend under §14-09-06.6(3)(c) claiming she had majority time and plan wasn’t followed.
- July 2010: district court finds Klein has prima facie case for modification under §14-09-06.6(3)(c).
- September 2010: Haroldson moves to modify under §14-09-06.6(6) after more than two years.
- District court denies Klein’s modification but finds material change for Haroldson; later vacates the equal custody provision as contrary to public policy and orders Klein primary.
- Court remands for explicit best-interests findings to support the custody decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-motions allowed district court to resolve primary residential responsibility | Haroldson argues cross-motions cannot modify core order | Klein argues cross-motions properly addressed custody | Yes; district court authorized to resolve primary residential responsibility |
| Whether the equal custody provision violated public policy | Haroldson contends the language aimed to avoid child support | Klein argues provision reflected agreement, not manipulation | Partially; the court vacated equal provision and addressed best interests |
| Whether the district court’s best-interests findings were adequate | Haroldson contends findings were insufficient to support modification | Klein argues findings supported by evidence | Remand for explicit, specific findings under best-interest factors |
| Whether Klein changed primary residential responsibility for six months under §14-09-06.6(3)(c) | Klein had majority time and thus changed primary responsibility | Evidence insufficient for change under six months threshold | Not clearly erroneous; court upheld lack of six-month change but remanded for best-interests analysis |
| Whether Haroldson’s motion under §14-09-06.6(6) was properly evaluated | Material change plus best-interests needed for modification | Change in circumstances supported Haroldson; best interests favorable to Klein | Remanded for explicit findings on material change and best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeller v. Zeller, 2002 ND 35 (Neb. 2002) (modification of custody and public policy considerations)
- Thornton v. Klose, 2010 ND 141 (ND Supreme Court 2010) (bright-line policy against using equal custody to avoid support)
- Serr v. Serr, 2008 ND 229 (ND Supreme Court 2008) (analysis of equal custody and support implications)
- Boumont v. Boumont, 2005 ND 20 (ND Supreme Court 2005) (public policy on avoidance of child support)
- Lee v. Lee, 2005 ND 129 (ND Supreme Court 2005) (public policy disfavoring agreements to avoid support)
- Seibel v. Seibel, 2004 ND 41 (ND Supreme Court 2004) (definition of material change in custody)
- In re Thompson, 2003 ND 61 (ND Supreme Court 2003) (material change meaning unknown facts/new facts)
- Selzler v. Selzler, 2001 ND 138 (ND Supreme Court 2001) (material change analysis in custody)
- Stanhope v. Phillips-Stanhope, 2008 ND 61 (ND Supreme Court 2008) (standard of review for custody findings)
- Smith Enters., Inc. v. In-Touch Phone Cards, Inc., 2004 ND 169 (ND Supreme Court 2004) (need for specific findings of fact to support conclusions)