Hunt v. Hunt, 791 N.W.2d 164

June Hunt appealed a divorce judgment that awarded her 25% of the increased value of her ex-husband Brett Hunt’s retirement accounts and subtracted $9,000 to offset a restitution obligation from a prior arson conviction.
The retirement accounts at issue were a 401(k) and a pension; the district court used an equitable distribution approach under North Dakota law (Ruff-Fischer guidelines) and did not require a full property listing.
Trial occurred with testimony about the parties’ marriage, finances, and the accounts; the court considered the marital increase in value and character of the accounts as marital assets.
June Hunt had been convicted of arson for burning Brett Hunt’s mobile home; she was ordered to pay $9,000 restitution.
The district court offset June’s restitution from her share of the accounts, awarding Brett 75% and June 25% of the increase in value; the court explained its reasoning under Ruff-Fischer factors.
The district court’s division was challenged on whether it properly weighed the misconduct and other circumstances in a short, relatively brief marriage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s 75/25 division of account increases was clearly erroneous.	Hunt argues the dismissal of $9,000 twice punishes her for a single act.	Hunt contends misconduct and health factors justify the disparity.	No clear error; disparity justified under Ruff-Fischer factors.
Whether offsetting the $9,000 restitution from the retirement award was a proper method of payment.	The offset improperly reduces the same asset twice.	Offset is a legitimate method to satisfy restitution.	Offset approved as a timely method of payment, not error.
Whether June’s misconduct should alter the marital property division beyond the restitution offset.	Misconduct should be weighed; but not as double counting.	misconduct appropriately considered among Ruff-Fischer factors.	District court properly considered misconduct; division affirmed.

Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952) (1952) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines guide equitable distribution)
Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966) (1966) (Ruff-Fischer lineage in property division)
Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 101, 733 N.W.2d 593 (2007) (disparity need not be equal; must be explained)
Ulsaker v. White, 2009 ND 18, 760 N.W.2d 82 (2009) (applies clearly erroneous standard to property division)
Holden v. Holden, 2007 ND 29, 728 N.W.2d 312 (2007) (division not mandated to be formulaic)
Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58, 746 N.W.2d 732 (2008) (duration of marriage to be considered among factors)