Norberg v. Norberg
2014 ND 90
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Alonna Norberg and Jon Norberg, married in 1996, have three children and both are physicians; Alonna later became disabled and receives Social Security benefits.
- Alonna filed for divorce in 2011; sought equitable property distribution, primary residential responsibility, child support, and permanent spousal support; sought temporary relief.
- A 2011 temporary order granted Alonna exclusive use of the residence, her temporary primary residential responsibility, and set child support; orders were amended without changing the support obligation.
- Custody investigator recommended Alonna have primary residential responsibility and Jon parenting time; Jon was later acquitted of criminal charges stemming from Alonna’s allegations.
- In 2013 the district court granted a divorce, awarded Jon primary residential responsibility, distributed assets and debts, denied permanent spousal support, ordered child support for Jon, and forgave arrearages during Alonna’s temporary caregiving.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for inclusion of all assets/debts, retention of jurisdiction for future spousal support, and recalculation of child support arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary residential responsibility | Norberg contends the court relied on false allegations and witness credibility to award Jon. | Norberg argues credibility determinations support Jon’s custody award and defer to trial court. | Not clearly erroneous; Jon awarded primary residential responsibility |
| Marital estate inclusion | All assets and debts must be included; some real property debts were omitted. | Debts were properly allocated; any omissions were clerical or misinterpretations on appeal. | Reversed; remanded to include all assets and debts in the marital estate |
| Dissipation of assets | Jon dissipated assets to pay child support and marital obligations during the pendency of the divorce. | Expenses were for marital or defense purposes and not to be charged to Alonna. | Court did not err in failing to assign remaining dissipated assets to Alonna; this issue remanded with property |
| Spousal support and jurisdiction | Court should retain jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future. | Court properly declined to retain jurisdiction; Ruff-Fischer factors favored no support. | Remanded; court must modify judgment to retain jurisdiction for potential future spousal support |
| Child support arrearages and retroactivity | Arrearages were forgiven; the court should grant credit for Social Security benefits to the children. | Forgiving arrearages retroactively violated child support laws; credit for benefits should be handled per guidelines. | Retroactive forgiveness improper; remand to conform with credit rules and exclude improper arrears forgiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- Rustad v. Rustad, 2013 ND 185 (ND 2013) (standard for reviewing primary residential responsibility findings)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71 (ND 2013) (best interests factors and credibility deference in custody)
- Hammeren v. Hammeren, 2012 ND 225 (ND 2012) (clearly erroneous standard; deference to trial court findings)
- Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2013 ND 48 (ND 2013) (requirement to include all marital property in estate for distribution)
- Holte v. Holte, 2013 ND 174 (ND 2013) (valuation and context for equitable distribution; Ruff-Fischer factors guidance)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (ND 1952) (Ruff-Fischer factors framework for property division)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (ND 1966) (Ruff-Fischer factors refinement)
- Guthmiller v. Guthmiller, 448 N.W.2d 643 (ND 1989) (credit for social security benefits toward child support when attributable to obligor)
- Reineke v. Reineke, 2003 ND 167 (ND 2003) (retaining jurisdiction for future support when disability present)
- Branson v. Branson, 411 N.W.2d 395 (ND 1987) (Ruff-Fischer factors and appropriateness of rehabilitative support)
- Crandall v. Crandall, 2011 ND 136 (ND 2011) (child support guidelines and parental duty to support)
- Mahoney v. Mahoney, 538 N.W.2d 189 (ND 1995) (modification timing under pending modification doctrine)