Hoff v. Gututala-Hoff, 910 N.W.2d 896

Kevin Hoff and Nicole Gututala-Hoff married in 2013 and have two children (2014, 2016). Hoff filed for divorce in November 2016.
Trial on remaining issues occurred in September 2017; Hoff represented himself; Gututala-Hoff had counsel.
The district court entered findings and a divorce judgment (Dec 2017) awarding Gututala-Hoff primary residential responsibility, joint decision-making, parenting time to Hoff, and child support to Gututala-Hoff.
Hoff objected to the judgment; the district court denied his objections and Hoff appealed.
On appeal Hoff argued he should have primary residential responsibility, sought a modified parenting-time schedule, and raised other issues and facts not presented below.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court's parenting-plan findings were sufficient and whether the decision was clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hoff should have primary residential responsibility	Hoff argues award to Gututala-Hoff is not in children’s best interests; best-interest factors favor him	At trial parties had stipulated to Gututala-Hoff as primary residential parent; court relied on record findings	Court affirmed; Hoff’s new arguments mostly raised for first time on appeal and record supports district court’s decision
Sufficiency of district court’s findings for parenting plan	Hoff contends findings were insufficient to show factual basis for decision	District court made oral and written findings addressing parenting-plan issues	Court held findings minimally sufficient for appellate review and not clearly erroneous
Whether appellate court may consider issues/facts raised first on appeal	Hoff asks court to consider additional facts, request for mediator, and other remedies	Appellee opposes consideration of issues not presented below	Court declined to consider issues not raised in district court per preservation rules
Modification of parenting-time schedule	Hoff requests revised schedule	District court adopted a parenting-time schedule after trial	Court declined to modify; found district court’s schedule supported by record

Horsted v. Horsted, 812 N.W.2d 448 (N.D. 2012) (court must issue parenting plan based on best interests and need for sufficient findings)
Edwards v. Edwards, 777 N.W.2d 606 (N.D. 2010) (custody and visitation are findings of fact reviewed for clear error)
Laib v. Laib, 751 N.W.2d 228 (N.D. 2008) (definition of clearly erroneous standard)
Wolt v. Wolt, 778 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2010) (trial court findings must have sufficient specificity)
Brandt v. Somerville, 692 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2005) (findings should enable appellate court to understand factual basis)
Sailer v. Sailer, 764 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2009) (failure to make required findings is legal error requiring remand)
Dixon v. Dixon, 898 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 2017) (appellate court will not consider issues not presented to the trial court)
Messer v. Bender, 564 N.W.2d 291 (N.D. 1997) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
Spratt v. MDU Res. Grp., Inc., 797 N.W.2d 328 (N.D. 2011) (purpose of appeal is review of trial court actions; issues not raised below forfeited)