Martinson v. Martinson, 2011 ND 156

Mark and Cheryl Paulson began living together in 1987, married in 1994, separated in 2006, and divorced in 2008; the district court initially awarded no spousal support and divided property.
On appeal, this Court affirmed the property division but reversed the spousal support ruling and remanded for findings under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
On remand, the district court issued amended findings and ordered Mark Paulson to pay $1,500 per month in permanent spousal support after analyzing the Ruff-Fischer factors and the needs and abilities to pay.
The district court found: long marriage; Mark’s income about $53,000 vs Cheryl’s $23,000; dissipation of marital assets via payments to a female friend; pooled income/assets; Mark had ability to pay while meeting debts; support would maintain Cheryl’s standard of living; Paulson’s own standard of living would not be substantially impaired.
On appeal, Paulson argued for a lower income figure (due to lodging/meal expenses) but did not raise this below; the court deemed new arguments raised for the first time on appeal improper.
Cheryl Paulson sought attorney fees and sanctions for alleged frivolous appeal and improper appendix; the court denied both requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether spousal support award on remand was proper under Ruff-Fischer.	Paulson contends Ruff-Fischer analysis supports or does not support the award.	Paulson asserts the needs vs. ability-to-pay and living standard analyses justify the award.	Yes; Ruff-Fischer analysis supported the award.
Whether district court’s spousal-support findings were clearly erroneous.	Paulson claims some findings are erroneous or inadequately supported.	Paulson contends the court properly applied Ruff-Fischer without error.	No; findings not clearly erroneous.
Whether new income argument could be raised on appeal given remand record.	Paulson raised that his income was actually different than the remand figures.	Cheryl argues issues not presented below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.	Yes; new income argument not preserved and not considered.
Whether appeal was frivolous and sanctions/fees are warranted; appendix issue.	Paulson contends the appeal is not frivolous and the appendix was proper.	Cheryl seeks fees and sanctions for alleged frivolous appeal and improper appendix.	No; appeal not frivolous; sanctions denied and fees denied.

Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 792 N.W.2d 916 (N.D. 2010) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines require evaluating needs and ability to pay)
Peterson v. Peterson, 788 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 2010) (relates to Ruff-Fischer framework and needs/ability to pay)
Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 2010) (remand directing more detailed Ruff-Fischer analysis)
Beeter v. Sawyer Disposal LLC, 771 N.W.2d 282 (N.D. 2009) (issues not raised below cannot be raised on appeal)
Spratt v. MDU Resources Group, Inc., 797 N.W.2d 328 (N.D. 2011) (noting appellate argument timing and briefs)
Cavendish Farms, Inc. v. Mathiason Farms, Inc., 792 N.W.2d 500 (N.D. 2010) (issues raised for first time at oral argument are generally not considered)