889 N.W.2d 885
N.D.2017Background
- Sandra Glass-Lenertz and James Glass divorced in 1996; the decree ordered Glass to pay $1,700/month spousal support and terminated payments on death but said nothing about remarriage.
- Lenertz remarried in September 2002.
- Glass fell behind on payments: he accrued $117,300 in support between 1996 and 2002, paid $23,000 in 2001–2002 and paid the remaining $94,300 between 2002 and July 2015; he did not pay interest on arrearages.
- In July 2015 Glass moved to terminate spousal support, arguing it ended upon Lenertz’s remarriage.
- The district court (after a November 2015 hearing) retroactively terminated support as of September 2002 and awarded Lenertz $26,903.37 in interest on unpaid support that accrued before her remarriage.
- Lenertz appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to retroactively terminate vested arrearages and alleging constitutional problems; the Court declined the constitutional argument for procedural reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remarriage permits termination of permanent spousal support | Lenertz: remarriage does not permit retroactive termination of accrued, unpaid spousal support because those arrearages are vested rights | Glass: remarriage creates a prima facie basis to terminate support and court may retroactively terminate installments after remarriage | Remarriage creates a prima facie case to terminate support; the trial court did not abuse discretion in retroactively terminating support as of the 2002 remarriage (no extraordinary circumstances shown) |
| Whether the court may retroactively cancel arrearages after remarriage | Lenertz: accrued unpaid payments are vested and protected from retroactive modification | Glass: court has discretion to retroactively modify/terminate installments after remarriage | Court follows Nugent: trial court may retroactively modify or terminate post-remarriage installments within its discretion; here termination retroactive to remarriage was permissible |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances justified continuation of support after remarriage | Lenertz: continued need existed due to costs of raising four children and other circumstances through ~2011 | Glass: Lenertz had sufficient income, remarried spouse’s income, no mortgage, no debts, and no extraordinary need | Court found no extraordinary circumstances (Lenertz and husband had substantial income and assets); support properly terminated at remarriage |
| Whether constitutional challenge to statute bars retroactive modification | Lenertz: accrued rights protection makes retroactive termination unconstitutional | Glass: procedural defenses apply; statute and precedent allow modification | Court declined to address constitutional claim due to procedural defect (no notice to AG) and relied on precedent recognizing exception for remarriage |
Key Cases Cited
- Nugent v. Nugent, 152 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1967) (remarriage creates prima facie case to terminate alimony and trial court may retroactively modify/terminate installments in its discretion)
- Richter v. Richter, 126 N.W.2d 634 (N.D. 1964) (general rule that divorce decree cannot be modified as to accrued but unpaid alimony)
- Klein v. Klein, 882 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 2016) (amendment to N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1 applies prospectively)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 606 N.W.2d 128 (N.D. 2000) (remarriage normally ends permanent spousal support absent extraordinary circumstances)