Kruckenberg v. State
2013 ND 59
N.D.2013Background
- Loren and Rita Woodward married in 1991, have no children, and experienced a long marriage.
- Loren earns about $78,000+ annually, while Rita earns about $27,000 and has health insurance needs.
- The district court awarded Rita $1,000 monthly spousal support after a trial on property division and support.
- The court found Loren’s drinking and extramarital affairs contributed to the marriage dissolution; Rita’s standard of living declined post-separation.
- Court considered Ruff-Fischer factors, Rita’s need, and Loren’s ability to pay, ordering permanent support to avoid unfair reduction of Rita’s living standard.
- Appellate affirmation followed, with emphasis on rehabilitation potential but continued need for support to balance living standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent spousal support was appropriate | Woodward argues rehabilitation is possible; permanent support unnecessary | Woodward contends rehabilitative support should suffice | Permanent support affirmed as appropriate |
| Whether Ruff–Fischer factors support the award | Woodward asserts factors do not justify permanent support | Woodward argues factors show need and ability to pay; district court did not err | Court properly applied Ruff-Fischer and explained reasoning |
| Whether support should terminate on cohabitation | Woodward argues termination upon cohabitation | Cermak rule prevents automatic termination; no automatic end on cohabitation | Not automatic; continues per Cermak principle |
Key Cases Cited
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (ND 2010) (rehabilitation not required when permanent support ensures living standard)
- Becker v. Becker, 2011 ND 107 (ND 2011) (even with rehabilitation, permanent support may be appropriate)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952) (ND 1952) (factors guiding spousal support under Ruff-Fischer)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (ND 1966) (Ruff-Fischer factors for support awards)
- Moilan v. Moilan, 1999 ND 103, 598 N.W.2d 81 (ND 1999) (goal of support balancing standard of living and marriage duration)
- Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77, 660 N.W.2d 586 (ND 2003) (earnings differences considered in support, not income equalization)
- Cermak v. Cermak, 1997 ND 187, 569 N.W.2d 280 (ND 1997) (cohabitation does not automatically terminate support)