Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, 942 N.W.2d 879

Background

Daniel Raak and Danel (Jacobs) divorced in 2015; the original judgment divided marital property, awarded Jacobs primary residential responsibility for three children, and set child support. The parties litigated mineral interests on prior appeal.
In August–September 2017 the parties agreed their eldest child would move to live with Raak in Iowa and signed an "Informal Agreement" addressing custody and child support.
Raak filed motions in February 2018 to modify custody/support and, in August 2018, a motion to redistribute property (seeking enforcement of the trial agreement to split family scrapbooks); the district court denied the redistribution motion on October 31, 2018.
An evidentiary hearing was held January 25, 2019 on custody, child support, and Jacobs’ contempt motion; the court issued orders in February 2019 modifying custody, imposing contempt on Raak, awarding reimbursement and fees, and adjusting child support for several time periods.
The State moved to alter the judgment’s child support provisions; the district court entered a third amended judgment in May 2019 adopting some of the State’s calculations. Raak appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jacobs)	Defendant's Argument (Raak)	Held
Appealability/timeliness of order denying motion to redistribute property and hearing	The October 31, 2018 order denying redistribution was final; the appeal of it was subject to the 60‑day rule and Raak’s later efforts did not revive it	Raak contended his motion was renewed at the January 2019 hearing and preserved for appeal, so the earlier denial should be reviewable	Appeal from the October 2018 order is untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days
Contempt finding for failure to reimburse agreed child expenses and health costs	Jacobs argued Raak willfully refused to pay his share, substantiated by records and testimony	Raak claimed he did not intentionally or inexcusably disobey and some expenses were not recoverable under the judgment	Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion; findings supported contempt determination and refusal to credit Raak’s explanations
Child support calculation and retroactive modification (Sept 2017–Jan 2018; Feb–Dec 2018; Jan 2019 onward)	Support must be calculated under the child support guidelines; retroactive adjustments involving change in residence fall under Brakke only if guidelines applied	Raak relied on the parties’ Informal Agreement for the Sept 2017–Jan 2018 period and argued the court properly imputed income and applied Rule 60(b) relief; also challenged guideline computations and evidentiary rulings	Reversed in part and remanded. Court erred by adopting the agreement’s dollar adjustment instead of calculating support under the guidelines; child support must be recalculated under the guidelines and court may reopen the record

Key Cases Cited

Brew v. Brew, 903 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 2017) (standard for reviewing child support determinations and requirement to state net income used)
Brakke v. Brakke, 525 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. 1994) (narrow exception allowing retroactive relief when parents agree to actual change in primary residence)
Holkesvig v. Welte, 809 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 2012) (intentional, willful, and inexcusable disobedience of court order constitutes contempt)
Lewis v. Smart, 900 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 2017) (district court generally lacks continuing jurisdiction to modify a final property distribution)
Walstad v. Walstad, 821 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 2012) (post‑judgment redistribution under statute is a separate statutory remedy)
State ex rel. Schlect v. Wolff, 801 N.W.2d 694 (N.D. 2011) (agreements attempting to relieve an obligor of child support are void; child’s right to support belongs to the child)
Steffes v. Steffes, 560 N.W.2d 888 (N.D. 1997) (child support guidelines don’t allocate pro rata per child; first‑child cost recognition)
Inv’rs Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 785 N.W.2d 863 (N.D. 2010) (appealability analysis for orders and finality considerations)