Johnson v. Johnson
2017 ND 125
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Tina and Matthew Johnson divorced in 2013 and share three minor children; Tina has primary residential responsibility and Matthew pays $596/month support per stipulation.
- The stipulation provided an alternating schedule for claiming the children’s tax dependency exemptions (two children one year, one child the next).
- Tina filed a motion to enforce the judgment in Oct. 2016 seeking (among other relief) permanent assignment of two tax exemptions to her; she requested oral argument and scheduled a date.
- The district court granted Tina’s motion on Dec. 1, 2016 and canceled the scheduled oral argument; Matthew had not requested oral argument.
- The district court’s factual findings emphasized Matthew’s repeated late or partial child-support payments, concluding this created a hardship for Tina and justifying reallocating two exemptions to her permanently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by ruling without holding the requested oral argument | Tina: court properly scheduled argument but later granted relief on the briefs | Matthew: Tina’s request should have guaranteed oral argument for both parties | Court: No error — Rule 3.2 requires each party to take affirmative steps to secure argument; Matthew did not request it |
| Whether the court erred in reallocating two of three tax dependency exemptions to Tina | Tina: reallocating permanently to her remedies hardship from late support payments | Matthew: court failed to make explicit findings on who would benefit most; award was clearly erroneous | Court: No clear error — court reasonably relied on chronic late payments and Tina’s custodial role to exercise discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Illies v. Illies, 462 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1990) (court may place exemptions with party who will most benefit but is not required to do so)
- State ex rel. Younger v. Bryant, 465 N.W.2d 155 (N.D. 1991) (allocation of exemptions can relate to child-support determinations)
- Dunnuck v. Dunnuck, 724 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 2006) (limits on frequent challenges to support and exemption allocations)