940 N.W.2d 622
N.D.2020Background
- Clare and Robert Messmer married in 1984; Robert farmed and ranched and Clare worked both on the farm and outside the home.
- Clare filed for divorce in June 2016; the first trial occurred in May 2018 and a judgment was entered in August 2018.
- After the first trial the parties discovered Robert’s mother had conveyed (by deed) a remainder interest in 320 acres to Robert; the deed had been recorded before separation but the parties were unaware of it until after the first judgment.
- Clare moved to amend the judgment to include the 320 acres; the district court granted motions to reopen, included the 320 acres in the marital estate, and set valuation as of the second trial date.
- Robert appealed, arguing the gift was not delivered (so the remainder was not marital property) and that the court improperly used the second-trial date for valuation; the Supreme Court affirmed inclusion of the land but reversed the valuation-date ruling and remanded for valuation consistent with N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1).
- The Court left other interrelated property-division, spousal-support, and attorney-fee issues to be addressed on remand because they depend on valuation of the 320 acres.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clare) | Defendant's Argument (Robert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 320-acre remainder interest is marital property (valid inter vivos gift/delivery) | The recorded deed constituted constructive delivery; recording presumes delivery and acceptance, so the remainder is marital property | The gift was not completed: Robert lacked physical possession of the deed and was unaware of the transfer before the first judgment | Inclusion affirmed: recording created a rebuttable presumption of delivery/acceptance and Robert offered no clear-and-convincing evidence of renunciation or to rebut presumption |
| Proper valuation date for the 320 acres | Valuation as of the second trial (court used current whole ownership value) | Valuation should be as of the first trial date (or as a remainder interest at the earlier statutory date) | Reversed: court erred by using second-trial date; statute requires valuation at service of summons or last separation when parties don’t agree |
| Other property-distribution issues (equalization payment, parcel/allocation, mineral interests) | Court’s allocation and equalization payments were equitable given assets as valued | Court misallocated assets and misvalued minerals; conduct should affect distribution | Not decided on appeal — remanded for reconsideration in light of corrected valuation of the 320 acres |
| Spousal support and attorney fees (denials) | Support/fees not required given distribution | Entitled to spousal support or fees based on disparity or conduct | Not decided on appeal — to be revisited on remand because these issues intertwine with property valuation and division |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinius v. Dinius, 448 N.W.2d 210 (N.D. 1989) (recording a deed can support a finding of constructive delivery)
- CUNA Mortgage v. Aafedt, 459 N.W.2d 801 (N.D. 1990) (recording raises presumptions of delivery and acceptance when deed is beneficial to grantee)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 2010) (marital estate includes present property interests, not mere expectancies)
- Kovarik v. Kovarik, 765 N.W.2d 511 (N.D. 2009) (requirements for inter vivos gift: donative intent, delivery, and acceptance)
- Innis-Smith v. Smith, 905 N.W.2d 914 (N.D. 2018) (extraordinary-post-trial valuation changes may justify reopening in narrow circumstances)
- Adams v. Adams, 863 N.W.2d 232 (N.D. 2015) (standard of review for marital-property distribution: factual findings not reversed unless clearly erroneous)