Harvey v. Harvey
2014 ND 208
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Married in 2000, three minor children; Jerry disabled with Social Security benefits and a work-accident settlement (~$1.5 million) prior to marriage; Christine owns an insurance agency.
- Christine filed for divorce in 2012 seeking primary residential responsibility, asset division, and child support; Jerry counter-claimed for primary residential responsibility, child support, and spousal support.
- February 2013 temporary order required shared parenting with equal time and a rotating use of the marital residence; Jerry ordered to undergo a functional capacity assessment.
- September 2013 divorce judgment awarded Christine primary residential responsibility, no child or spousal support, and a two-thirds marital estate share to Jerry; marital residence to be sold with net proceeds split.
- January 2014 final judgment clarified sale of marital home; on appeal, district court’s primary residential responsibility and lack of spousal-support reservation are challenged; issue of Jerry’s disabled status raised on remand.
- CourtAffirmedInPartReverseInPartRemanded forFurtherFindings onJerryDisabledStatus;remand directs reservation of jurisdiction over spousal support if warranted
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in awarding Christine primary residential responsibility. | Harvey argues the record supports his status as primary caretaker. | Harvey contends he should be recognized as primary caretaker due to workday caregiving. | Not clearly erroneous; court acted within discretion and found both fit. |
| Whether the district court should reserve jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future. | No immediate need found; court should reserve jurisdiction due to disability and later income potential. | Court should not retain jurisdiction; current estate division suffices. | Remanded to make further findings on disabled status and preserve jurisdiction for potential future spousal support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandal v. Leno, 2014 ND 45 (ND 2014) (clearly erroneous review; deferential standard for best interests a key)
- Norberg v. Norberg, 2014 ND 90 (ND 2014) (need to consider potential future income and reservation of jurisdiction)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71 (ND 2013) (best interests factors; broad discretion in parenting decisions)
- Hogue v. Hogue, 1998 ND 26 (ND 1998) (joint parenting support for both parents; no single primary caretaker finding required)
- Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621 (ND 1986) (primary caretaker concept embedded in statute; not elevated as standalone factor)
- Reineke v. Reineke, 2003 ND 167 (ND 2003) (guidance on spousal support considerations in Ruff-Fischer framework)
- van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93 (ND 1994) (reservation of jurisdiction where health or income uncertainty exists)