Lind v. Lind, 2014 ND 70

Christopher and Karla Lind divorced by stipulated judgment (Mar 2011); Karla awarded primary custody of two minor children; Christopher ordered to pay $2,000/month child support and $1,500/month spousal support.
Christopher moved (Mar 2012) to modify child and spousal support, to hold Karla in contempt for denying parenting time and not attending co‑parenting therapy, and to apply proceeds from a lawn tractor sale as a credit against his support obligations.
The district court (and a judicial referee) granted a child‑support modification but denied modification of spousal support, denied contempt, and refused to credit the tractor sale; awarded Karla attorney’s fees. Amended judgments and post‑bankruptcy proceedings followed; Christopher appealed.
District court found Christopher had ability to pay spousal support (living in marital home rent‑free, working full‑/part‑time) and that there was no material change of circumstances warranting modification.
For contempt, the court found Karla did not willfully obstruct parenting time; testimony showed the teenage children independently chose not to visit their father.
On the lawn tractor, the court found the tractor was used exclusively at the marital home and Karla reasonably believed it was her personal property; the court therefore denied Christopher a credit from its sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether spousal support should be modified	Christopher: business closed, bankruptcy, reduced income; cannot afford spousal support	Karla: no material change; Christopher still able to pay; stipulated award should be upheld	Denied — no clear error; no material change warranting modification of stipulated support
Whether Karla should be held in contempt for denying parenting time / skipping co‑parenting therapy	Christopher: Karla prevented access to children and refused therapy, warranting contempt	Karla: did not interfere; children (teens) chose not to visit and declined counseling	Denied — no willful, inexcusable disobedience; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether Christopher’s parental rights were terminated	Christopher: court effectively terminated his parental rights	Karla: parental rights not terminated	No termination — issue lacks merit
Whether Christopher should receive credit from proceeds of sold lawn tractor	Christopher: tractor was business asset; proceeds should credit his support obligations	Karla: tractor was used only at home and reasonably treated as personal property awarded to her	Denied — court’s valuation/division not clearly erroneous; sale proceeds need not credit him

Schulte v. Kramer, 2012 ND 163, 820 N.W.2d 318 (reluctance to modify stipulated spousal support; material change standard)
Krueger v. Krueger, 2013 ND 245, 840 N.W.2d 613 (clear‑error standard for factual findings; discretion in contempt and visitation contexts)
Waslaski v. State, 2013 ND 70, 830 N.W.2d 228 (treatment of motions for reconsideration as motions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j))
Berg v. Berg, 2000 ND 37, 606 N.W.2d 903 (standard for civil contempt; burden to show contempt clearly and satisfactorily)
Prchal v. Prchal, 2011 ND 62, 795 N.W.2d 693 (definition of contempt under N.D.C.C.)
Dufner v. Trottier, 2010 ND 31, 778 N.W.2d 586 (children’s preferences relevant in visitation/modification for teens)
Kostelecky v. Kostelecky, 2006 ND 120, 714 N.W.2d 845 (standard for review of property valuation and division)