Innis-Smith v. Smith, 905 N.W.2d 914

Background

Parties dated from 1994, lived together from 1997, married in 2006, separated in 2011; trial occurred April 2013; district court memorandum opinion issued May 2015.
District court valued the net marital estate at $7.94 million, awarded Terry Smith the large majority of assets but equalized by a $3.43 million cash payment to Cindie Innis‑Smith, and granted Cindie $4,000/month permanent spousal support.
The district court excluded Terry’s interest in his mother Jacqueline Smith’s revocable trust because Jacqueline amended the trust during the divorce so Terry’s gifts would lapse to his daughters and Jacqueline died before the divorce concluded.
After the memorandum opinion, Terry moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) to reopen the record, submitting appraisals showing the East Fork water depot and mineral interests fell in value substantially between trial and the court’s decision.
The district court denied the motion to reopen; the Supreme Court reversed that denial as an abuse of discretion because of the two‑year delay and the large, unanticipated decline in value, and remanded for valuation proceedings.
The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the equal property division, the permanent spousal support award (while noting spousal support can be revisited on remand), and the exclusion of the trust assets from the marital estate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether marital property division (equal split) was erroneous	Cindie: equal division appropriate given length and nature of the parties’ relationship and contributions	Terry: short formal marriage does not justify equal split; he brought most assets	Affirmed — court’s Ruff‑Fischer findings supported near‑equal division based on parties’ long cohabitation and joint contributions
Whether court abused discretion by denying motion to reopen to revalue water depot and mineral interests	Terry: values fell dramatically after trial; two‑year delay made trial values stale; reopening appropriate	Cindie: assets valued at trial; allowing post‑trial revaluation invites endless affidavits; parties stipulated to trial values	Reversed — Supreme Court finds abuse of discretion given long delay and substantial, unanticipated decline; remanded for evidentiary proceedings on values
Whether permanent spousal support award was erroneous	Cindie: support needed to equalize incomes and standards of living; needs and Terry’s ability to pay justify permanent award	Terry: (argued on appeal) award improper or excessive	Affirmed (but remand may prompt reconsideration if valuations change) — findings on income disparity and needs supported permanent support
Whether Terry’s interest in Jacqueline’s trust was marital property	Cindie: Terry had a vested interest at Jacqueline’s death and any lapse was temporary; trust interest should be included	Terry: Jacqueline’s 2012 amendments during the divorce caused Terry’s gifts to lapse to his daughters at her death, so he had no interest	Affirmed — court correctly interpreted amended trust: Terry’s interest lapsed to daughters upon Jacqueline’s death and was not includable in marital estate

Key Cases Cited

Lewis v. Smart, 900 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 2017) (standard of review and Ruff‑Fischer distribution guidance)
Grinaker v. Grinaker, 553 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1996) (marital property ordinarily valued at trial; extraordinary post‑trial changes may justify reopening)
Horner v. Horner, 686 N.W.2d 131 (N.D. 2004) (court may consider pre‑marital cohabitation time when dividing property)
Stephenson v. Stephenson, 795 N.W.2d 357 (N.D. 2011) (permanent spousal support appropriate where rehabilitative support insufficient)
Williams v. Williams, 863 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 2015) (spousal support analysis requires Ruff‑Fischer plus needs and ability to pay)
Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 2010) (trusts generally treated as marital property subject to division)
Alerus Financial, N.A. v. Western State Bank, 750 N.W.2d 412 (N.D. 2008) (principles of contract/trust interpretation)
Kopp v. Kopp, 622 N.W.2d 726 (N.D. 2001) (Rule 60(b) relief may be available when post‑judgment events render a judgment unjust)