927 N.W.2d 104
N.D.2019Background
- Bruce and Kimberly Lee cohabited from 2001, married in 2005, and divorced after ~17 years together; final trial concluded Jan 31, 2018; decree entered Aug 17, 2018.
- Real property: farmland originally purchased by Bruce (1995, contract for deed from his mother), marital home built with a mortgage during the marriage; Bruce and Kimberly granted a life estate and sold the property to Bruce’s three children via a contract for deed (children to pay $600/month for 240 months).
- Dispute over values: parties presented divergent values for home, land, life-estate interests, and the remaining contract-for-deed payments; the court valued life-estate interests using an administrative-code multiplier and included remaining contract payments as a separate asset.
- Other disputed assets: a Bobcat Skid-Steer (parties offered different valuations and documentary support) and a receivable for delinquent payments from Bruce’s children (Bruce said he forgave some; Kimberly said debt remained).
- Procedural issue: Bruce challenged a roughly six-month delay between trial/briefing (final brief Feb 14, 2018) and the court’s decision (July 31, 2018), arguing prejudice from continued interim-order payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of life-estate and inclusion of remaining contract-for-deed payments in marital estate | Bruce argued the court overvalued real estate by including life-estate valuation and adding remaining contract payments, leading to excessive valuation | Kimberly contended life-estate and unpaid contract payments were marital assets and properly valued | Court upheld use of life-estate multiplier and separate valuation of remaining contract payments; valuations were within the evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Valuation of Bobcat Skid-Steer | Bruce argued lower value (~$9,500) supported by dealer estimate and his testimony | Kimberly claimed higher value (~$15,000); court found Bruce’s evidence incomplete and his testimony not credible | Court adopted Kimberly’s valuation as more credible; valuation not clearly erroneous |
| Inclusion of receivable (delinquent payments by children) in marital estate | Bruce argued he had forgiven some payments and thus receivable should not be included | Kimberly argued the debt remained; contract was with both spouses so Bruce could not unilaterally forgive | Court found inclusion proper; issue resolved by credibility and inference—amounts were marital asset |
| Six-month delay in issuing final judgment — prejudice claim | Bruce asserted prejudice from continued interim-order obligations during delay and cited administrative time standards | Kimberly and court noted administrative time standards are goals; no extraordinary change in asset values shown | Court held delay alone insufficient for relief absent extraordinary prejudice; Bruce failed to show compounding harm warranting reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbett v. Corbett, 628 N.W.2d 312 (N.D. 2001) (standard for reversing district court valuations of marital property)
- Kautzman v. Kautzman, 585 N.W.2d 561 (N.D. 1998) (definition of clearly erroneous finding)
- Hoverson v. Hoverson, 629 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 2001) (credibility determinations and permissible foundations for factual findings)
- Fox v. Fox, 626 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 2001) (valuation of marital property depends on evidence presented)
- Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, 888 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 2016) (valuation within evidence range is not clearly erroneous)
- Ulsaker v. White, 717 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 2006) (presumption that property held by either party is marital and requirement to value and equitably divide the estate)
- Schultz v. Schultz, 920 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 2018) (Ruff-Fischer factors and need to specify rationale for equitable division)
- Bladow v. Bladow, 665 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2003) (listing Ruff-Fischer factors to guide division)
- Grinaker v. Grinaker, 553 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1996) (source of property must be considered but no requirement to set property aside for spouse who brought it into marriage)
- Innis-Smith v. Smith, 905 N.W.2d 914 (N.D. 2018) (delay is relevant only in extraordinary cases with substantial, unanticipated changes in asset valuation)