Fugere v. Fugere
865 N.W.2d 407
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Kevin and Marie Fugere married in August 2009 after a postponed wedding; marriage lasted about 44 months (3.5 years) with no children.
- At marriage Kevin owned a large ranch and had substantial pre-marriage net worth (primarily real property); Marie had recently completed bankruptcy and brought a thrift account (~$100,000) and some personal property.
- Marie left her postmaster job (approx. $60,000/yr) during the marriage, later did some household and limited ranch assistance, had documented long-standing emotional problems and suicide attempts, and ultimately left the ranch in January 2013.
- Kevin sued for divorce in January 2013; the district court valued the marital estate at nearly $5.85 million and allocated most assets to Kevin, awarding Marie property worth ~$161,662 plus a $105,000 cash award (reduced by $24,000 previously paid) and rehabilitative spousal support of $1,550/month for five years.
- The court explained its division by applying Ruff‑Fischer factors, emphasizing the short duration of the marriage and that most property (and its appreciation) originated from Kevin prior to marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kevin) | Defendant's Argument (Marie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property division — equitable distribution of marital estate | Property and its appreciation were largely Kevin’s separate property from before the marriage; short marriage supports unequal division | Marie claimed she quit a $60,000 job to help on the ranch, contributed to asset growth, and is entitled to half the marital estate or half the appreciation | Court affirmed district court: division not clearly erroneous; short marriage and findings that Marie’s contributions were minimal justified unequal division |
| Claim to appreciation / contribution credit | Appreciation resulted from pre-marriage assets and market factors, not Marie’s efforts | Marie argued her labor contributed to increased net worth and sought substantial share of appreciation | Court accepted factual findings that Marie’s ranch work was minimal and did not cause appreciation; no clear error |
| Cash reduction of $24,000 (credit for interim payments) | Court permissibly reduced Marie’s cash award by amounts Kevin had already paid; court clarified original order language | Marie argued the reduction conflicted with the plain language of the original order | Held against Marie: court properly interpreted/clarified its prior interlocutory order and had power to revise amounts before final judgment |
| Spousal support (permanent vs rehabilitative) | Kevin maintained permanent support was not warranted given short marriage and Marie’s decision to quit job | Marie sought permanent spousal support given her lost employment and emotional problems | Court awarded rehabilitative spousal support: $1,550/month for five years; considered vocational prospects and Marie’s emotional issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist v. Feist, 862 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2015) (standard for valuing and equitably dividing marital property and Ruff‑Fischer factors)
- McCarthy v. McCarthy, 856 N.W.2d 762 (N.D. 2014) (appellate standard of review for district court findings and Ruff‑Fischer considerations)
- Hoverson v. Hoverson, 828 N.W.2d 510 (N.D. 2013) (all property is marital property initially; short marriages may justify unequal division)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 830 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 2013) (short-term marriage can support awarding parties what they brought into marriage)
- Routledge v. Routledge, 377 N.W.2d 542 (N.D. 1985) (no rule requiring equal division of increase in net worth during marriage; market-driven appreciation may not require equal sharing)