Krueger v. Krueger, 2013 ND 245

Albert and Shirley Krueger divorced in 2007; the judgment awarded Shirley permanent spousal support: $1,500/month for 10 years, then $1,000/month thereafter.
This Court previously affirmed the divorce judgment on appeal.
In 2012 Shirley sought an order to show cause for contempt and attorney fees, alleging Albert failed to pay spousal support for many months in 2011–2012.
Albert admitted arrears and asserted inability to pay because of diminished income, farm losses (attributed to son’s mismanagement), retirement intent, and health issues (pacemaker, diabetes); he moved to modify/terminate support.
After an evidentiary hearing the district court found Albert willfully in contempt, calculated arrearage ($29,250), ordered immediate resumption of $1,500/month support plus $1,000/month toward arrears, and awarded Shirley $1,000 in attorney fees.
On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed: it held no material change in circumstances justified termination, affirmed the contempt finding, and upheld admission (but limited weight) of medical letters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether permanent spousal support should be terminated/modified	Shirley: no material change; Albert still has income/ assets and need remains	Albert: health decline, reduced hours, farm losses, near‑retirement and inability to pay constitute a material change	Denied—no clear error; evidence showed tax practice income and property sufficient; retirement speculative and health not shown to prevent work
Whether Albert was in contempt for failing to pay support	Shirley: Albert willfully failed to pay despite ability	Albert: inability to pay is a defense; he was unable to comply	Affirmed—district court did not abuse discretion; Albert failed to prove inability and court found income directed elsewhere
Whether medical letters showing work limitations were admissible/considered	Shirley: letters hearsay and should be discounted	Albert: letters show physical limitations that bear on ability to pay	District court admitted letters but treated them as potentially hearsay and gave limited weight; appellate court found no abuse of discretion
Whether attorney fees and arrearage relief were appropriate	Shirley: fees and arrearage award appropriate given contempt and unpaid support	Albert: challenges to amount based on inability to pay	Affirmed—court’s remedial orders upheld along with contempt finding

Krueger v. Krueger, 748 N.W.2d 671 (N.D. 2008) (prior appeal affirming divorce judgment and support award)
Schulte v. Kramer, 820 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2012) (standard for modifying spousal support; burden to show material change)
Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (inability to comply is a defense to contempt; burden on alleged contemnor)
Sall v. Sall, 804 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2011) (standards for contempt and willfulness)
Harger v. Harger, 644 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 2002) (definition of contempt and intent requirement)
Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 2000) (standard of proof required for contempt)
Millang v. Hahn, 582 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 1998) (abuse of discretion review for contempt sanctions)
Woodward v. Woodward, 776 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 2009) (trial court latitude in contempt determinations)
Glasser v. Glasser, 724 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2006) (appellate review limits on contempt rulings)
In re J.S.L., 763 N.W.2d 783 (N.D. 2009) (admissibility of hearsay in non‑jury proceedings; harmlessness principles)