966 N.W.2d 892
N.D.2021Background
- Richard Anderson and Priscilla Iakel-Garcia married in 2008 and have one minor child; Iakel-Garcia filed for divorce in November 2019 and a bench trial was held remotely in November 2020.
- Anderson has been incarcerated since May 2019 after guilty pleas to crimes involving sexual acts with a minor; the district court took judicial notice of the criminal convictions.
- The district court granted the divorce, awarded Iakel-Garcia primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making for the child, and distributed the marital estate in November 2020.
- Anderson appealed, arguing the court should not have considered his conviction for custody (because it did not involve the parties’ child) and alleging judicial bias; he also challenged the property division as inequitable.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the custody and sole decision-making award (finding incarceration and convictions relevant to moral fitness and availability and bias was not preserved), reversed the property distribution, and remanded because the district court failed to value the marital estate or apply Ruff–Fischer factors; a new judge must handle remand and make Rule 63 certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary residential responsibility / sole decision-making | Iakel-Garcia: Best-interest factors favor her; Anderson unavailable due to incarceration and convictions relevant to moral fitness. | Anderson: Criminal conviction irrelevant because it did not involve the parties’ child; judge biased. | Affirmed: Court’s findings under best-interest factors were not clearly erroneous; convictions and incarceration relevant; bias claim not preserved. |
| Consideration of criminal conviction in custody | Iakel-Garcia: Convictions bearing on moral fitness and availability are relevant. | Anderson: Convictions unrelated to the child and thus irrelevant. | Held convictions (sexual acts with a minor) were relevant to factor on moral fitness and to the child’s welfare and availability. |
| Judicial bias / recusal | Iakel-Garcia: (opposed) | Anderson: Same judge presided over his criminal case and was biased. | Denied on appeal: bias not raised below (no recusal request), so issue is not preserved. |
| Property division / equitable distribution | Iakel-Garcia: (upheld trial court’s distribution) | Anderson: Division was inequitable; court failed to value marital estate. | Reversed and remanded: court failed to determine total marital estate value or articulate Ruff–Fischer rationale; insufficient findings for appellate review. |
| Award of appellate fees for frivolous appeal | Iakel-Garcia: Appeal is frivolous; requests fees and double costs. | Anderson: Appeal not frivolous. | Denied: Court concluded the appeal was not frivolous and declined fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lessard v. Johnson, 936 N.W.2d 528 (N.D. 2019) (standard of review for primary residential responsibility and need to ground award in best-interest findings)
- Dick v. Erman, 923 N.W.2d 137 (N.D. 2019) (primary residential responsibility awarded to parent promoting child’s best interests)
- Zuo v. Wang, 932 N.W.2d 360 (N.D. 2019) (court must consider best-interest factors under statute)
- Rustad v. Baumgartner, 920 N.W.2d 465 (N.D. 2018) (need for specificity in findings supporting custody decision)
- Lorenz v. Lorenz, 729 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2007) (standard of review for property division findings)
- Hitz v. Hitz, 746 N.W.2d 732 (N.D. 2008) (presumption that property held by either party is marital property)
- Lee v. Lee, 927 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 2019) (Ruff–Fischer guidelines for equitable property division)
- In re Estate of Bartelson, 864 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 2015) (requirement for Rule 63 certification when a new judge takes remand)
- Wisnewski v. Wisnewski, 945 N.W.2d 331 (N.D. 2020) (failure to raise judicial bias at trial precludes appellate review)