Nuveen v. Nuveen, 825 N.W.2d 863

Michiel and Elizabeth Nuveen married in 1991 and have three children.
A Partial Divorce Judgment in 2007 awarded Elizabeth primary custody of all children and set Michiel’s guideline-based support at $4,250 (the highest guideline amount).
In 2010, one child began living with Michiel with Elizabeth’s permission; Michiel’s income was found to exceed $42,000, triggering guideline calculations based on the $12,500 maximum.
The district court calculated presumptive support as $3,543 for Michiel and $1,087 for Elizabeth, then netted Elizabeth’s against Michiel’s presumptive support to arrive at $2,456 monthly obligation for Michiel.
The court upwardly deviated to $3,750 monthly in the best interests of the children, and later, following a Rule 59 motion and a corrected math error, ordered $3,620 per month after set-off.
Michiel Nuveen appealed challenging the deviation and the sequencing of the deviation with the offset; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether upward deviation was proper given the children’s needs and high income	Nuveen argues needs are not shown with specifics; should align with Heggen	Nuveen contends deviation is warranted by expanded needs and ability to pay	Upward deviation affirmed; needs and ability to pay justify the amount.
Whether deviation should be determined before or after the offset	Nuveen contends deviation applied after offset in error	Court properly found deviation based on best interests and ability to pay	Deviation upheld; not error to apply after offset in this case.
Standard of review for child support deviation findings	Nuveen claims trial court abused discretion by not requiring line-item needs	Court’s factual findings supported by evidence; standard is clear error	Court’s finding not clearly erroneous; supported by evidence.
Whether the trial court’s reliance on expanded lifestyle needs is consistent with guidelines	Nuveen says guidelines already address basic needs; no expansion evidence	Expanded needs due to high income justify deviation per guidelines and case law	Yes; expanded needs permissible and supported by record.

Heggen v. Heggen, 452 N.W.2d 96 (N.D.1990) (discussion of needs beyond subsistence in wealthy families and standard of living)
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 481 N.W.2d 234 (N.D.1992) (need for further inquiry when income exceeds guideline maximum)
Martire v. Martire, 2012 ND 197, 822 N.W.2d 450 (ND 2012) (upward deviation based on income exceeding highest guideline amount)
Edwards v. Edwards, 1997 ND 94, 563 N.W.2d 394 (ND 1997) (definition and limits of findings of fact in child support cases)
Sureras v. Matuska, 548 N.W.2d 384 (ND 1996) (standard for reviewing factual findings in district court)
Hanson v. Hanson, 2005 ND 82, 695 N.W.2d 205 (ND 2005) (misapplication of guidelines; not applicable to deviation here)