Frey v. Frey
2013 ND 100
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Frey and Wonser were divorced in 2008; Wonser was awarded primary residential responsibility for their two children.
- In January 2011 Wonser moved with the younger child to Alvarado, Minnesota, while the older child remained with Frey to continue schooling.
- In July 2011 Frey filed a motion to modify primary residential responsibility to obtain both children.
- An interim hearing in October 2011 granted Frey primary residential responsibility and parenting time to Wonser.
- In August 2012 the district court denied Frey’s modification motion, and Frey appealed, challenging the ruling as to both material change and best interests; the court also addressed child support issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a material change in circumstances warranting modification? | Frey contends Wonser’s relocations and related facts constitute a material change. | Wonser maintains no material change occurred. | Material change occurred; remand for best-interest analysis. |
| If material change exists, is modification necessary to serve the child’s best interests? | Frey argues modification is required to serve children's best interests. | Wonser argues no modification is necessary. | Remand to evaluate best-interest factors under statute. |
| Did the district court properly analyze the best-interest factors under NDCC 14-09-06.2(1)(a)-(m)? | Court failed to adequately detail factors beyond partial analysis. | Court’s brief consideration suffices. | Remand for a reasoned application of all factors. |
| Was the interim child-support modification relating to Frey properly explained and within discretion? | Court could modify based on current income; interim order lacked full explanation. | District court acted within discretion to modify based on income. | Affirmed modification of Frey’s child support; remanded for interim support reasoning. |
| Did the court err by not addressing Wonser’s interim child-support obligation when Frey had primary residential responsibility? | Lack of reasoning on interim support requires remand. | Not specified; lower court decisions accounted elsewhere. | Remanded for reconsideration with a reasoned explanation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krueger v. Tran, 822 N.W.2d 44 (2012 ND 227) (burden to show change in residential responsibility)
- Vining v. Renton, 816 N.W.2d 63 (2012 ND 86) (two-step analysis for modification)
- Neustel, 790 N.W.2d 476 (2010 ND 216) (relocation and related factors can be material changes)
- Glass v. Glass, 800 N.W.2d 691 (2011 ND 145) (relocation and new partner may be material change)
- Gietzen v. Gietzen, 575 N.W.2d 924 (1998 ND 70) (move to live with new partner may be material change)
- Doll v. Doll, 794 N.W.2d 425 (2011 ND 24) (need for explicit reasoning on best-interest factors)
- Clark v. Clark, 704 N.W.2d 847 (2005 ND 176) (clear articulation of factors required for review)
- Deyle v. Deyle, 825 N.W.2d 245 (2012 ND 248) (remand when record lacks adequate basis for decision)