Nuveen v. Nuveen
795 N.W.2d 308
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Nuveen married in 1991, divorced in 2007, with three children; Elizabeth has not worked since 1996.
- Michiel Nuveen is an orthodontist owning an S corporation; the practice value was disputed at trial.
- The district court valued the orthodontia practice using Michiel’s expert (Sliwoski) with adjustments; Elizabeth’s expert (Shea) valued it differently.
- After a five-day trial, the court awarded Elizabeth $7,500 per month in permanent spousal support due to income disparity.
- Elizabeth cross-appealed, challenging valuation of the practice and the decision not to equalize incomes via spousal support.
- Michiel cross-appealed, challenging the amount and arguing about proper consideration of his income and Elizabeth’s need.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of the orthodontia practice | Nuveen contends the district court should have accepted Shea’s valuation. | Nuveen argues Sliwoski’s appraisal with adjustments was correct. | Court affirmed acceptance of Sliwoski's valuation with adjustments; within the evidentiary range. |
| Reasonableness of the spousal support amount | Nuveen argues $7,500 is excessive given income; Elizabeth argues it should reflect needs and potential rehabilitation. | Nuveen asserts the court properly weighed needs and ability to pay under Ruff-Fischer. | Court upheld $7,500 per month as appropriate permanent spousal support. |
| Method of calculating income for support | Nuveen argues only monthly available income should be considered. | Elizabeth contends the practice’s net profits and distributions should be included. | Court relied on wages, practice net profits, distributions, and tax returns; no clear error. |
| Equalization of income via spousal support | Elizabeth seeks income equalization between spouses. | Court was not required to seek equalization; not the goal of spousal support. | Court held equalization is not required and did not err in not equalizing incomes. |
| Rehabilitative vs permanent spousal support | Elizabeth argues permanent support is warranted; rehabilitative would be preferable. | Permanent support justified by substantial income disparity and lack of rehabilitation prospects. | Court affirmed permanent spousal support; noted rehabilitation feasible but not sufficient to bridge disparity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (N.D. 2010) (establishes standard for reviewing spousal-support awards)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines govern spousal-support factors)
- Krueger v. Krueger, 2008 ND 90, 748 N.W.2d 671 (N.D. 2008) (identifies Ruff-Fischer factors and court deference to valuation ranges)
- Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77, 660 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 2003) (proper method for valuing a business in divorce)
- Heggen v. Heggen, 452 N.W.2d 96, 99 (N.D.1990) (N.D. 1990) (definition of fair market value for professional practices)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 2010 ND 100, 783 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 2010) (income disparity may support permanent spousal support)
- Christian v. Christian, 2007 ND 196, 742 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 2007) (permanent spousal support appropriate when substantial disparity persists)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 33, 728 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2007) (permanent vs rehabilitative framework for spousal support)
- Moilan v. Moilan, 1999 ND 103, 598 N.W.2d 81 (N.D. 1999) (rehabilitative vs permanent considerations in support awards)
- Wiege v. Wiege, 518 N.W.2d 708, 711 (N.D.1994) (N.D. 1994) (preference for rehabilitative support when appropriate)