Mertz v. Mertz
858 N.W.2d 292
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Merryn Mertz and Darlene Mertz married in 1996 and separated after 17 years of marriage during which they had a son and Darlene raised stepchildren.
- The district court granted a divorce, awarded Darlene permanent spousal support of $900/month and distributed marital assets and debts with a net disparity favoring Darlene, plus a $75,000 equalization payment from Mertz to Darlene.
- Mertz appealed challenging the spousal support award as clearly erroneous and the asset/debt division as inequitable.
- The trial court valued assets including retirement funds, a home, and various vehicles, and included some pre-marital assets in the marital estate.
- The court concluded Darlene is economically disadvantaged and ordered permanent spousal support; this Court reverses on spousal support and remands for reconsideration of both spousal support and property distribution.
- The appeal was treated as raising issues of spousal support under the Ruff-Fischer framework and the equitable division of the marital estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal support award is clearly erroneous. | Mertz contends Darlene’s need and ability to pay do not justify $900/month; the award exceeds evidence and needs analysis. | Mertz argues the court properly deemed Darlene disadvantaged and misapplied Ruff-Fischer guidelines. | Spousal support award reversed and remanded for proper Ruff-Fischer analysis. |
| Whether pre-marital assets were properly treated in the marital estate. | Mertz claims pre-marital assets were improperly included to inflate Darlene’s share. | Darlene asserts inclusion is appropriate to achieve an equitable division. | District court’s inclusion of pre-marital assets as marital property upheld; not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the district court properly valued and distributed marital property and debts. | Mertz argues valuation and distribution favored Darlene and lacked adequate explanation under Ruff-Fischer. | Darlene contends distribution was equitable given incomes and contributions. | Valuations and distribution not clearly erroneous; remand required for integrated reconsideration after spousal support is addressed. |
| Whether spousal support and property division were properly intertwined for remand purposes. | N/A (argument folded into total dispositional analysis). | N/A (argument folded into overall interrelation of awards). | Remand allows reconsideration of spousal support alongside property distribution due to their interdependence. |
| Whether the spousal support issue was properly raised and tried by implied consent. | Mertz argued spousal support was not properly pleaded at outset. | Mertz waived objection by trial on the issue with evidence and cross-examination. | Spousal support was tried by implied consent and properly before the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gustafson v. Gustafson, 2008 ND 233 (ND 2008) (requires Ruff-Fischer factors; considers needs and ability to pay)
- Sack v. Sack, 2006 ND 57 (ND 2006) (disadvantaged-spouse doctrine rejected; emphasizes Ruff-Fischer analysis)
- Becker v. Becker, 2011 ND 107 (ND 2011) (courts must explain rationale for Ruff-Fischer findings)
- Lorenz v. Lorenz, 2007 ND 49 (ND 2007) (district court valuations are not reversed unless clearly erroneous)
- Fraase v. Fraase, 315 N.W.2d 271 (ND 1982) (pre-marital assets can be part of marital estate; source and time of acquisition relevant)
- Neidviecky v. Neidviecky, 2003 ND 29 (ND 2003) (all property and debts must be considered in equitable division)
- Datz v. Dosch, 2013 ND 148 (ND 2013) (valuation range matters; deference to trial court on credibility)