Friesner v. Friesner
921 N.W.2d 898
| N.D. | 2019Background
- Daniel and Angelina Friesner married in 1997 and have two teenage children. Daniel is a college professor earning about $152,325/year; Angelina has been disabled since 2006 and has limited income from disability.
- Daniel filed for divorce in February 2017; a temporary April 2017 order had shared residential responsibility and Daniel paid child support and the mortgage (in lieu of spousal support).
- Two-day trial occurred in July 2017; February 2018 judgment divided marital property (Daniel ~$370,627 net; Angelina ~$480,534 net), gave Angelina primary residential responsibility, set child support at $2,525/month (effective August 2017), awarded Angelina non-rehabilitative spousal support ($2,000/month, rising to $2,500 in 2020), and $5,000 in attorney’s fees to Angelina.
- District court found the children (both interviewed in chambers) were sufficiently mature and both preferred to live with their mother; court gave substantial weight to those preferences.
- A parenting investigator recommended Daniel for primary residential responsibility of one child (H.F.), but the court exercised its discretion to credit the children’s in‑chambers testimony and other best‑interest factors in awarding primary residential responsibility to Angelina.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary residential responsibility for H.F. | Daniel argued Angelina improperly influenced the child and the court should not give substantial weight to the child’s preference; parenting investigator recommended Daniel. | Angelina and children testified the preference was genuine; court found children mature and independent. | Affirmed: court’s award to Angelina not clearly erroneous; children’s preferences given substantial weight. |
| Spousal support (amount/type) | Daniel argued award was erroneous. | Angelina argued disability and income disparity justify non‑rehabilitative support. | Affirmed: court considered Ruff‑Fischer factors and needs/ability to pay; award supported by evidence. |
| Retroactive support / conflict with temporary order | Daniel argued judgment improperly established retroactive obligations conflicting with temporary order. | Court treated temporary order and judgment as consistent, setting child support effective August 2017 and requiring mortgage change going forward. | Affirmed: no conflict; judgment’s effective dates explained. |
| Attorney’s fees award ($5,000) | Daniel contended fee award was improper. | Angelina showed disparity in incomes and outstanding attorney fees. | Affirmed: court acted within discretion considering needs and ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schweitzer v. Mattingley, 887 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 2016) (standard of review for child custody findings)
- Innis‑Smith v. Smith, 905 N.W.2d 914 (N.D. 2018) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 905 N.W.2d 772 (N.D. 2018) (deference to district court on custody between fit parents)
- Marsden v. Koop, 789 N.W.2d 531 (N.D. 2010) (weight to assign parenting investigator’s report is discretionary)
- Lewis v. Smart, 900 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 2017) (Ruff‑Fischer factors and attorney’s fees analysis)
- Stephenson v. Stephenson, 795 N.W.2d 357 (N.D. 2011) (non‑rehabilitative spousal support when income disparity cannot be remedied)
- Christian v. Christian, 742 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 2007) (explaining that failure to restate earlier findings in fee paragraph does not necessarily make fee award an abuse of discretion)