Hoverson v. Hoverson
828 N.W.2d 510
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Sandra Hoverson appeals and Carl Hoverson cross-appeals from a divorce judgment distributing the marital estate and awarding spousal and child support plus attorney’s fees.
- The parties married in May 2004; they have one child and lived separately for long periods; Sandra resided mainly in Florida, Carl near Larimore, North Dakota.
- The district court valued the marital estate at about $14.5 million, awarding Sandra roughly $2.8 million and Carl about $11.6 million, with Sandra receiving 20% overall.
- Carl’s farming businesses generated substantial income; the district court valued his interests in several entities and found economic fault due to transfers to his sons from a prior marriage.
- The court awarded Sandra spousal support of $3,000 per month for two years and child support of $3,002 per month, plus Sandra’s attorney’s fees.
- Sandra and Carl each challenged the district court’s property distribution, spousal support duration/amount, child support deviation, and fee award; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the property division clearly erroneous | Sandra argues the division was improper and too favorable to Carl. | Carl contends the division favored Sandra too little and misapplied Ruff-Fischer. | Not clearly erroneous; Ruff-Fischer factors supported discretionary split. |
| Whether spousal support was appropriate and properly calculated | Sandra seeks permanent or longer rehabilitative support given disparity. | Carl argues no need for ongoing spousal support. | Not clearly erroneous; rehabilitative approach supported by facts. |
| Whether an upward deviation for child support was justified | Sandra argues for a greater upward deviation due to Carl's income. | Carl argues no deviation and that any deviation should be minimal. | Not clearly erroneous; burden on showing needs of child and ability to pay; record supported modest deviation. |
| Whether attorney’s fees award was improper | Sandra contends the fee award was appropriate given property award. | Carl asserts abuse of discretion in awarding fees. | Not abuse of discretion; factors including property outcome and disparity supported the award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wold v. Wold, 2008 ND 14, 744 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 2008) (standard of review for property divisions; preserve factual findings)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines for equitable division)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (Ruff-Fischer framework introduction)
- Ulsaker v. White, 2006 ND 133, 717 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 2006) (consideration of Ruff-Fischer factors; property valuation timing)
- Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58, 746 N.W.2d 732 (N.D. 2008) (no bright-line rule for duration; weighting of long vs short marriage)
- Martire v. Martire, 2012 ND 197, 822 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 2012) (review standard; deference to district court credibility findings)