916 N.W.2d 793
N.D.2018Background
- Tamra and Mark Knudson divorced after a marriage beginning in 1998; three children were minors at the time of trial. The parties settled property division and parenting for two younger children; disputes remained over spousal support, residential responsibility for the oldest minor child, and child support.
- The district court awarded primary residential responsibility for the oldest minor child to Mark, adopted the parties’ stipulations for the two younger children, denied Tamra’s request for rehabilitative spousal support, and ordered Tamra to pay child support (initially $403/month, later $57/month after the oldest child’s emancipation).
- In the property division Tamra received substantial cash and liquid assets (approximately $234,000 in bank/investment accounts), IRAs, farmland (several quarters), mineral interests producing royalties, cattle, and other assets; total awarded assets exceeded $1.2 million excluding certain interests.
- The district court found Tamra earned substantial income (including lease/mineral income and a $280,000 2016 lease bonus), had potential for increased earnings after completing massage-therapy training, and had no debt; Mark’s farming income was variable and his recent expenses and operating needs left him without an ability to pay spousal support.
- The court found Tamra engaged in an extra-marital affair and had withheld her sexual orientation from Mark prior to the marriage; it treated the affair (and the failure to disclose, as relevant) as non-economic marital fault contributing to the breakdown of the marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying Tamra rehabilitative spousal support | Tamra argued she was economically disadvantaged and needed six years rehabilitative support; Mark had ability to pay. | Mark argued spousal support was unnecessary given the property division and his limited ability to pay; premarital agreement governed property. | Denial affirmed: court’s findings that Tamra did not need support after property awarded and Mark lacked ability to pay were not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the $280,000 oil & gas lease bonus should be excluded from Tamra’s gross income for child support as nonrecurring/noncontrolled income | Tamra argued the bonus was nonrecurring and beyond her control and should be excluded (analogous to atypical employee bonuses). | Mark argued it was income and must be included under the guidelines. | Included: court properly treated the lease bonus as self-employment/rental income under the guidelines and did not err. |
| Whether payments Tamra received from Knudson Farms should be excluded from her income and attributed to Mark (i.e., treated as stipends not wages for services) | Tamra claimed the payments were stipends, not wages for services, and should be excluded from her income or added to Mark’s self-employment income under the guideline provision about household payments. | Mark relied on tax returns showing payments to Tamra and evidence she performed farm work. | Included in Tamra’s income: court found Tamra did not prove payments exceeded fair market value of services; evidence supported including the payments in her income. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmuck v. Schmuck, 882 N.W.2d 918 (N.D. 2016) (standards for reviewing spousal support findings)
- Berg v. Berg, 908 N.W.2d 705 (N.D. 2018) (rehabilitative support and interrelation of property division and support)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (Ruff–Fischer factors for spousal support)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (Ruff–Fischer framework)
- Berge v. Berge, 710 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 2006) (broad definition of gross income under child support guidelines)
- Thompson v. Johnson, 912 N.W.2d 315 (N.D. 2018) (necessity of correct net income finding for child support calculations)