Grasser v. Grasser, 2018 ND 85

Gene and Stephanie Grasser married in 2000, had one child (b. 2004); marriage involved allegations of violence, threats, substance abuse, and two domestic violence protection orders against Gene.
Stephanie filed for divorce in July 2014; district court granted partial summary judgment in May 2015 and tried custody/property issues in Sept. 2016. Amended judgment entered March 17, 2017.
Gene moved to recuse the trial judge early in proceedings, alleging prior relationships between the judge and Stephanie; the judge denied recusal after Gene produced no affidavits or concrete evidence.
The court found Gene in contempt on multiple occasions for discovery/noncompliance and awarded sanctions and attorney fees to Stephanie; Gene did not timely appeal those contempt orders.
The district court awarded primary residential responsibility of the child to Stephanie after applying the statutory best‑interest factors and divided marital property and debts, rejecting Gene’s claims of large undocumented loans from family.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stephanie)	Defendant's Argument (Gene)	Held
Motion to recuse judge	Judge was impartial; oppose recusal	Judge alleged prior relationship/appearance of partiality warranting recusal	Denial affirmed — no evidence beyond vague allegations; denial not abuse of discretion (motion treated as recusal).
Contempt orders & reimbursement of sanctions	Sanctions and fees appropriately awarded to Stephanie for Gene’s misconduct/noncompliance	Gene sought reimbursement because prior attorney’s failures caused discovery lapses	Affirmed — Gene failed to timely appeal contempt orders; district court’s sanctions stand; court’s order that parties pay own fees satisfies alternative relief.
Custody — primary residential responsibility	Stephanie argued child’s best interests favor her (investigator recommended Stephanie)	Gene argued court misapplied best‑interest factors, relied on stale or irrelevant conduct	Affirmed — findings supported by record (domestic violence, DUI, counseling records, parental involvement); not clearly erroneous.
Property & debt division	Equitable division under Ruff‑Fischer; court excluded undocumented alleged $2M familial loans	Gene argued court failed to credit family loans and misapplied Ruff‑Fischer (length of marriage)	Affirmed — court permissibly discredited undocumented loans, treated the 15‑year marriage as long term, and applied Ruff‑Fischer within discretion.

Rath v. Rath, 2013 ND 243, 840 N.W.2d 656 (recusal reviewed for abuse of discretion; appearance of impartiality standard)
Schweitzer v. Mattingley, 2016 ND 231, 887 N.W.2d 541 (judge not divested of authority by mere filing of recusal motion; duty to recuse only when required)
Brew v. Brew, 2017 ND 242, 903 N.W.2d 72 (standards for sanctions and attorney fee awards in family law)
Thompson v. Thompson, 2018 ND 21, 905 N.W.2d 772 (custody findings reviewed as factual, reversed only if clearly erroneous)
McCarthy v. McCarthy, 2014 ND 234, 856 N.W.2d 762 (Ruff‑Fischer guidelines and equitable division principles)