Gabaldon-Cochran v. Cochran
2015 ND 214
| N.D. | 2015Background
- LaTanya Gabaldon and Jeremy Cochran married in 2011, separated in 2014, and had no children; marriage lasted ~3 years.
- Parties moved to North Dakota for Gabaldon to attend law school; Gabaldon graduated and worked as a law clerk at trial; Cochran left a law-enforcement career in Arizona to accompany her and worked for UND Police.
- Gabaldon sought divorce; district court awarded each party the assets and debts they brought into the marriage but ordered Gabaldon to pay Cochran $17,500 cash; net awards: Gabaldon ~$814, Cochran ~$69,666.
- Gabaldon argued (1) the property division was not equitable, (2) the court erred in awarding a cash payment, and (3) the court should have included a $25,000 Hopi Tribe scholarship/obligation as marital debt.
- The district court applied Ruff–Fischer factors, found the short duration of the marriage favored returning premarital assets but credited Cochran for age difference, lost career opportunities, and difference in future earning capacity, and declined to quantify the scholarship obligation as a debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether property distribution is equitable | Gabaldon: distribution is inequitable; court erred | Cochran: distribution returns premarital property and accounts for career disruption | Court: distribution not clearly erroneous; Ruff–Fischer factors support unequal allocation in short marriage |
| Whether district court could order a cash payment to Cochran | Gabaldon: ND law does not permit a cash payment to increase inequality | Cochran: cash payment is permissible to equitably adjust division | Court: cash award permissible; used to account for age, earning ability, conduct, career disruption |
| Whether Hopi scholarship obligation is marital debt | Gabaldon: $25,000 scholarship creates repayable obligation if service condition unmet and must be included | Cochran: scholarship was too uncertain/illusory to be a quantifiable debt | Court: scholarship obligation too undefined and unquantified; not included in marital estate |
| Whether spousal support should be awarded (interrelated) | Gabaldon: sought no support argument on appeal | Cochran: no spousal support needed given cash award and distribution | Court: no spousal support awarded; cash payment and distribution considered in analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist v. Feist, 862 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2015) (standard for reviewing property distribution and Ruff–Fischer factors)
- McCarthy v. McCarthy, 856 N.W.2d 762 (N.D. 2014) (clearly erroneous standard for findings of fact)
- Lorenz v. Lorenz, 729 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2007) (requirement to value entire marital estate before distribution)
- Fugere v. Fugere, 865 N.W.2d 407 (N.D. 2015) (short-term marriage supports returning premarital assets)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (Ruff guidelines for equitable distribution)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (factors to consider in property division)
- Linn v. Linn, 370 N.W.2d 536 (N.D. 1985) (cash payments can be part of property distribution)
- Schiff v. Schiff, 835 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 2013) (spousal support and property division are interrelated)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 830 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 2013) (unequal division may be appropriate in short marriages)