McCarthy v. McCarthy, 2014 ND 234

Paul McCarthy inherited a one-half remainder interest in 1,642 acres of farmland and a 2.5 acre farmstead with a life estate held by his mother; upon her death, Paul and his brother must pay $60,000 to each of their three sisters as a condition of inheriting.
Paul and Carleen McCarthy married in 1998; they have three minor children and lived on the farmstead until separation.
Paul is sole shareholder of McCarthy Electric, Inc. with a gross income of $62,459; Carleen is a teacher earning $45,729.
In 2012, they stipulated to a partial divorce judgment addressing child issues and primary residential responsibility to Carleen; marital property valued at $936,106.35, with roughly $751,453 tied to Paul’s remainder interest.
The district court awarded Carleen a one-quarter interest in Paul’s remainder interest, and offered Paul either to convey a 1/4 share or pay Carleen $125,000; remaining assets were divided accordingly, yielding a substantial disparity.
Spousal support was set at a nominal $20 per month with continuing jurisdiction; child support was set at $1,246 per month.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Property division disparity	Carleen: buyout creates undue disparity not justified.	McCarthy: court weighed speculative value of remainder and premarital aspects under Ruff-Fischer; distribution not clearly erroneous.	Not clearly erroneous; district court explained rationale for disparity.
Spousal support propriety	Carleen: needs support given health risks and financial uncertainty.	McCarthy: support not required beyond nominal amount.	Not clearly erroneous; nominal spousal support upheld with potential future modification.

Hoverson v. Hoverson, 828 N.W.2d 510 (2013 ND) (clear error standard; Ruff-Fischer factors guide spousal-property decisions)
Wold v. Wold, 744 N.W.2d 541 (2008 ND) (long-term marriage; equitable distribution not necessarily equal)
Ulsaker v. White, 717 N.W.2d 567 (2006 ND) (Ruff-Fischer factors and marriage duration inform property division)
Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952 ND) (early Ruff-Fischer framework for property division considerations)
Bladow v. Bladow, 665 N.W.2d 724 (2003 ND) (substantial disparity must be explained in property distribution)
Linrud v. Linrud, 552 N.W.2d 342 (1996 ND) (need to justify substantial disparities in division)
Theis v. Theis, 534 N.W.2d 26 (1995 ND) (permissible to retain jurisdiction for modification in uncertain futures)
Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 792 N.W.2d 916 (2010 ND) ( Ruff-Fischer framework for spousal support analysis)
Overland v. Overland, 744 N.W.2d 67 (2008 ND) (district court must consider Ruff-Fischer factors and needs/ability to pay)
Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (2010 ND) (reaffirmed application of Ruff-Fischer guidelines)
Wald v. Wald, 556 N.W.2d 291 (1996 ND) (nominal spousal support appropriate given health-related needs)