Meier v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services
2012 ND 134
N.D.2012Background
- Marriage in January 1993; medical debt incurred by David in March 2010; divorce in April 2011; divorce judgment required David to pay the debt and to indemnify each other from collection efforts; Recovery Resources sued for $9,494.61 based on debt incurred while married; trial court granted Recovery Resources summary judgment against Helen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Helen and David jointly and severally liable under §14-07-08(3) for debts incurred during marriage | Recovery Resources argues Helen is liable under §14-07-08(3) and §14-07-10. | Helen argues the divorce judgment allocated the debt to David and she bears no liability. | Yes; Helen is jointly and severally liable under §14-07-08(3). |
| Does the divorce indemnity clause preclude Recovery Resources from collecting from Helen | Recovery Resources maintains creditor rights are unaffected by divorce indemnity. | Helen argues indemnity relieves her from liability to the creditor. | No; indemnity does not defeat the creditor’s statutory right to recover; Helen may seek recourse against David or enforcement options remain. |
| Do Keig v. Keig and Peters-Riemers v. Riemers bar Recovery Resources’ claim by altering division of debts | Recovery Resources relies on statutory liability, not property division. | Helen relies on divorce cases to limit liability. | No; Keig and Peters-Riemers do not support disentangling creditor rights from §14-07-08 in this collection action. |
| Does the divorce judgment’s unequal distribution impact Recovery Resources’ ability to recover from Helen | Statutory recovery remains despite divorce distribution. | Distribution should preclude liability of the non-debtor spouse. | No; divorce distribution does not bar creditor’s rights under §14-07-08(3). |
| Does the court’s indemnity provision affect Recovery Resources’ collection rights | Recovery Resources contends entitlement to collect; indemnity is separate. | Indemnity could shift obligations within the divorce context. | Indemnity does not override creditor’s statutory rights; remedies remain available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keig v. Keig, 270 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1978) (divorce law not controlling §14-07-08 debt liability for third parties)
- Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 644 N.W.2d 197 (N.D. 2002) (§14-07-08 does not affect division of marital property; not controlling creditor actions)
- Eckmann v. Northwestern Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 436 N.W.2d 258 (N.D. 1989) (summary judgment evidentiary standard for essential elements)
- Mountrail Bethel Home v. Lovdahl, 720 N.W.2d 630 (N.D. 2006) (divorce judgments do not bind third-party creditors)
- Simpson v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 693 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 2005) (privity and collateral estoppel considerations in judgments)
- St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital v. Kuczaj, 528 N.E.2d 290 (Ill. Ct. App. 1988) (divorce court’s allocation does not affect third-party creditors)