Feist v. Feist, 2015 ND 98

Married in 1971; divorced in 2013; two adult children.
During the marriage Cheryl inherited mineral and surface interests in McKenzie County and received royalties.
At trial the district court valued the marital estate and awarded Cheryl $1,248,358.30 (50.05%), including all mineral interests, and Thomas $1,245,945.76 (49.95%).
Cheryl requested attorney fees; the district court denied the request and ordered each party to bear their own fees.
Thomas appealed the mineral-interest award as speculative and argued he should receive a share of future royalties; Cheryl cross-appealed seeking a larger property share and attorney fees.
The Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and its attorney-fee decision for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cheryl)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Whether the district court erred by awarding all mineral interests to Cheryl because their value was speculative	Cheryl: expert valuation (income approach) was admitted; Thomas failed to challenge valuation; minerals were inherited but valuated properly	Thomas: expert conceded future prices uncertain; minerals too speculative — should receive portion of future royalties instead	Court affirmed: valuation was not clearly erroneous; income approach valid; award to Cheryl upheld
Whether Cheryl should receive a larger share for dissipation and failure to maintain the marital home	Cheryl: Thomas dissipated marital accounts and failed to maintain home, reducing value — warrants upward adjustment	Thomas: district court considered dissipation but evidence supported near-equal division	Court affirmed: district court considered Ruff‑Fischer factors and did not clearly err in nearly equal split
Whether Cheryl should be awarded attorney fees	Cheryl: Thomas’s conduct and dissipation justify fees	Thomas: court should balance needs and ability to pay; fees discretionary	Court affirmed: district court balanced needs vs. ability to pay and did not abuse discretion in denying fees

McCarthy v. McCarthy, 856 N.W.2d 762 (discusses clearly erroneous review of marital property division and Ruff‑Fischer factors)
van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93 (trust expectancy that is speculative should be treated by awarding share of future payments)
Zuger v. Zuger, 563 N.W.2d 804 (upholding award of percentage of future trust distributions where present valuation too speculative)
Moilan v. Moilan, 598 N.W.2d 81 (property valued as of date of trial)
Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (separate or inherited property included in marital estate but origin may be considered)
Holte v. Holte, 837 N.W.2d 894 (valuation findings presumptively correct)
Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (articulation of Ruff‑Fischer equitable division factors)
Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (establishing factors for equitable division)