Motschman v. Bridgepoint
2011 ND 46
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Michiel Nuveen, a Grand Forks orthodontist, and Elizabeth Nuveen, who has not worked since 1996, marry in 1991 and divorce in 2007.
- Michiel’s orthodontia practice is an S Corporation; the district court valued the practice for property division and potential spousal support considerations.
- The district court relied largely on Michiel’s expert (Sliwoski) for the practice valuation and awarded Elizabeth $7,500 per month permanent spousal support after finding future income disparity.
- Elizabeth cross-appealed alleging error in valuing the practice (favoring her expert) and in not equalizing incomes via spousal support.
- Michiel challenged the income calculations used to determine support and argued the amount and duration of support were not properly tailored to his ability to pay and Elizabeth’s needs.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s valuation, the permanent spousal support award ($7,500/month), and the related findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of the orthodontia practice | Elizabeth urged acceptance of her expert’s higher value | Nuveen urged acceptance of the district court’s reliance on Sliwoski’s valuation | Valuation within range; district court not clearly erroneous |
| Amount and duration of spousal support | Elizabeth seeks adequate funds for post-divorce needs | Michiel contends lower support is appropriate given his income | Permanent spousal support of $7,500/month upheld |
| Equalization of incomes via spousal support | Court should equalize incomes through support | Equalization not required as a goal of spousal support | Court not required to equalize incomes through spousal support |
| Rehabilitative vs permanent spousal support | Elizabeth could be rehabilitated to self-support | Permanent support appropriate due to substantial income disparity | Permanent spousal support affirmed; remand not required for rehabilitation timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 792 N.W.2d 916 (2010 ND 247) (affords standard for reviewing spousal support findings)
- Krueger v. Krueger, 748 N.W.2d 671 (2008 ND 90) (valuation and Ruff-Fischer guidelines cited)
- Sommers v. Sommers, 660 N.W.2d 586 (2003 ND 77) (fair market value; business valuation principles)
- Heggen v. Heggen, 452 N.W.2d 96 (1990 ND) (valuation concepts in professional practices)
- Christian v. Christian, 742 N.W.2d 819 (2007 ND 196) (permanent vs rehabilitative spousal support factors)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (2010 ND 100) (permanent spousal support when disparity cannot be remedied by other means)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 728 N.W.2d 318 (2007 ND 33) (rehabilitative vs permanent framework; rehabilitation emphasis)