Mertz v. Mertz
2015 ND 13
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Mervyn and Darlene Mertz married in 1996 (marriage ~17 years); both had health issues and were over age 50 at trial; all children are adults.
- District court granted divorce, awarded Darlene retirement funds, vehicle and personal property (net ≈ $74,345) and awarded Mervyn the marital home, retirement, vehicles and personal property (net ≈ $225,235).
- Court ordered Mervyn to pay Darlene $75,000 cash within 60 days to equalize property division and permanent spousal support of $900/month until death or remarriage.
- Mervyn appealed, challenging (1) the spousal support award (procedural pleading and ability to pay/analysis under Ruff‑Fischer), and (2) the valuation and distribution of marital property and debts.
- Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of spousal support and, because spousal support and property division are intertwined, allowed the district court to revisit property distribution as needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Darlene) | Defendant's Argument (Mervyn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal support could be awarded despite original complaint stating no spousal support | Spousal support was later sought in interim proceedings; she effectively tried the issue and provided evidence of need | District court erred because complaint expressly disclaimed spousal support and she did not properly amend pleadings | Court: Issue was tried by implied consent (Rule 15(b)); award may be considered because parties litigated the issue |
| Whether permanent spousal support of $900/month was appropriate | Requested $500/month; argued she is economically disadvantaged and entitled to support | Argued district court misapplied law, failed comprehensive Ruff‑Fischer analysis, and that Mervyn cannot afford $900/month given cash payment and debts | Court: Reversed spousal support award—findings inadequate, misapplied law, and $900/month unsupported by record; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether district court correctly valued and divided marital property (home, annuity, personal property) | Distribution was equitable as decided | Claimed valuations and allocations (including treatment of pre‑marriage assets and annuity) produced gross inequity and overstate his obligations | Court: Most valuations (home, other property, annuity allocation) were within the range of evidence and not clearly erroneous, but because spousal support interrelates with property division, court may reconsider distribution on remand |
| Whether district court included and allocated marital debts correctly (and numerical discrepancy) | Debts were allocated equitably | Argued some debts or values omitted/miscalculated; pointed out ~$1,306 arithmetic discrepancy in assigned debts | Court: Generally not clearly erroneous in classifying/allocating debts but noted the $1,306 discrepancy is de minimis and should be corrected on remand; allowed reconsideration due to interrelation with spousal support |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Fox, 592 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 1999) (spousal support findings reviewed for clear error)
- Brandner v. Brandner, 698 N.W.2d 259 (N.D. 2005) (marital property division reversible only if clearly erroneous)
- Gustafson v. Gustafson, 758 N.W.2d 895 (N.D. 2008) (trial court must consider supporting spouse’s ability to pay and receiving spouse’s needs; Ruff‑Fischer guidelines)
- Sommer v. Sommer, 636 N.W.2d 423 (N.D. 2001) (permanent spousal support justified when disadvantaged spouse cannot be rehabilitated)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (Ruff‑Fischer equitable division framework)
- Sack v. Sack, 711 N.W.2d 157 (N.D. 2006) (emphasized comprehensive analysis under Ruff‑Fischer over simple disadvantaged‑spouse doctrine)
- Lynnes v. Lynnes, 747 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 2008) (valuation within range of evidence not reversed; interrelation of property division and support)
- Bullock v. Bullock, 354 N.W.2d 904 (N.D. 1984) (formula for prorating retirement interest for distribution)
- Neidviecky v. Neidviecky, 657 N.W.2d 255 (N.D. 2003) (all marital assets and debts must be included in distribution)
- Eberle v. Eberle, 783 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 2010) (owner testimony on real property value admissible and trial court’s valuation afforded deference)