Kosobud v. Kosobud, 2012 ND 122

Married in 1966 in North Dakota; three now-adult children; moved frequently for Arnold's employment.
Separated in 1993; Arnold left to live in Bismarck and later filed for divorce in 2009; he provided ongoing support during separation.
Trial court valued marital assets at divorce time, not at 1993 separation; found Arnold depleted assets and Teresa retained some post-separation funds.
Property distribution: Arnold awarded ~$478,911 in assets and $282,800 in debts; Teresa awarded ~$30,430 in assets and Arnold ordered to pay $70,000 cash; spousal support $1,500/month, later reduced to $1,000/month after Teresa begins Social Security.
Teresa sought full attorney-fee recovery; Arnold challenged post-trial motions; court corrected some rulings but largely denied post-trial relief; this is the affirmed appeal.
Court affirmed the district court’s property distribution, spousal support, and attorney-fee rulings, rejecting asserted errors and finding no clear error or abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether property distribution was equitable under Ruff-Fischer guidelines	Kosobud argues error in asset valuation and unequal split	Kosobud contends court properly balanced long-term marriage and assets	Not clearly erroneous; equitable despite unequal split
Whether valuation at divorce time was proper vs separation	Kosobud asserts assets should be valued as of 1993 separation	Kosobud acknowledges post-separation accruals; valuation at divorce appropriate	Valuation at divorce time proper; assets accumulated post-separation included in marital estate
Whether income averaging was appropriate for financial issues other than child support	Kosobud disputes use of income averaging	Average income is a reasonable indicator for financial issues in divorce	Court did not err in averaging income for division of assets and support considerations
Whether attorney-fee award against Arnold was abused	Kosobud seeks full fees; argues reasonableness	Kosobud awarded partial fees as sanction for delayed information	No abuse of discretion; award of $15,000 proper sanction amount
Whether spousal-support award was clearly erroneous	Kosobud argues amount/term inadequate given retirement prospects	Award reflects Ruff-Fischer factors and anticipated social security benefits	Not clearly erroneous; supported by Ruff-Fischer factors and future needs

Crandall v. Crandall, 2011 ND 136, 799 N.W.2d 388 (ND 2011) (guidelines for equitable distribution of marital property)
Becker v. Becker, 2011 ND 107, 799 N.W.2d 53 (ND 2011) (spousal support standards and rehabilitation considerations)
Dronen v. Dronen, 2009 ND 70, 764 N.W.2d 675 (ND 2009) (attorney-fee awards; discovery-related sanctions permissible in divorce actions)
Kelly v. Kelly, 2011 ND 167, 806 N.W.2d 133 (ND 2011) (fee awards under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23 and sanctions for unreasonable conduct)
Eberle v. Eberle, 2010 ND 107, 783 N.W.2d 254 (ND 2010) (valuation range sufficiency; credibility in property valuation)