Hoverson v. Hoverson
2015 ND 38
N.D.2015Background
- Carl and Sandra Hoverson divorced in 2012; property division awarded Sandra ≈ $2.8M, Carl ≈ $11.6M; rehabilitative spousal support to Sandra $3,000/month for two years; Sandra primary residential parent; parenting-time schedule set in judgment.
- Carl moved to enforce parenting-time schedule or appoint a parenting coordinator; sought attorney fees.
- Sandra moved to reduce Carl’s parenting time, to increase and extend spousal support, and sought attorney fees.
- After an evidentiary hearing the district court: modified parenting time in part, appointed a parenting coordinator (with limited input from Sandra for mechanical compliance review), denied Sandra’s motion to modify spousal support, and awarded attorney fees to Carl.
- Sandra appealed, challenging (1) denial of increased/extended spousal support, (2) parenting-time modifications and limits on her input with the parenting coordinator, and (3) the attorney-fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandra) | Defendant's Argument (Carl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred denying modification (increase/duration) of rehabilitative spousal support | Sandra: Changes in Carl’s income and distributions from Hoverson Farms show a material change of circumstances warranting increased/extended support | Carl: Income changes were irrelevant to the original rehabilitative award; Sandra hasn’t shown a material change; she failed to make good-faith job-search efforts | Court: Affirmed denial — no material change shown; obligor’s income was not dispositive here, and Sandra failed to show good-faith efforts toward rehabilitation |
| Whether court erred by appointing a parenting coordinator, excluding Sandra’s input for mechanical compliance, and expanding coordinator authority | Sandra: Excluding her from input and empowering the coordinator to make major decisions improperly expands authority and violates rule limiting substantive changes | Carl: Exclusion was limited to mechanical review to enforce the judgment due to Sandra’s interference; coordinator’s authority was not expanded beyond statutory/rule limits | Court: Affirmed — record supports findings of interference; appointment and limited exclusion for compliance review were authorized; coordinator’s authority not improperly expanded |
| Whether parenting-time modification was supported | Sandra: Carl’s work schedule increases use of daycare; she should be allowed more parenting time when child could be with her | Carl: Conflicts and Sandra’s interference justified modification to ensure meaningful parenting time for him | Court: Affirmed modification — material change (parental conflict/interference) and modification served child’s best interests |
| Whether awarding attorney fees to Carl was an abuse of discretion | Sandra: Her motions were meritorious; fee award punishes exercise of legal rights | Carl: Fees were proper because Sandra’s motions unreasonably increased litigation time; award has been satisfied | Court: Sandra paid the award voluntarily and thus waived appellate challenge; no live controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2013 ND 48, 828 N.W.2d 510 (affirming original spousal-support and property distribution analysis)
- Prchal v. Prchal, 2011 ND 62, 795 N.W.2d 693 (standard for modifying parenting time: material change + best interests)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71, 830 N.W.2d 571 (limits on parenting coordinator authority; court retains ultimate authority)
- Gibb v. Sepe, 2004 ND 227, 690 N.W.2d 230 (material change requirement to modify spousal support)
- Dufner v. Trottier, 2010 ND 31, 778 N.W.2d 586 (examples of material change and best-interests analysis for parenting-time modification)