Paulson v. Paulson, 2011 ND 159

Aimee and James Martinson divorced in North Dakota in 2006; divorce judgment awarded Aimee physical custody of two children, James visitation, and allowed move to Minnesota.
In 2007, children alleged sexual abuse by James; Minnesota authorities investigated; Aimee obtained a Minnesota protective order and later a North Dakota ex parte interim order prohibiting James from contact.
The North Dakota order awarded Aimee attorney fees for bringing the action; Aimee submitted an affidavit requesting $17,043.44 in fees and costs.
Minnesota investigations concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated; 2007–2009 proceedings in North Dakota sought modification of visitation, with an agreed plan for reunification and expert involvement.
May 14, 2009, district court awarded Aimee $15,735.97 for Minnesota proceedings only; remaining fees and ongoing issues were remanded by this Court in 2010 (Martinson I) to consider needs, ability to pay, and fee escalation.
On remand, the district court signed a Proposed Order that did not specify a chosen option and failed to address needs, ability to pay, or unresolved financial issues; Aimee appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
WhetherFees for North Dakota ex parte order on remand	Aimee seeks additional attorney fees for North Dakota ex parte proceedings.	Defendant proposes limited or no additional fees beyond prior award.	Remand required; district court must reconsider and specify reasoning.
Whether fees for motion to modify visitation were properly awarded	Aimee is entitled to fees for pursuing modification of visitation under §14-05-23.	Fees should be denied or limited based on fault or lack of modification.	Remand required to apply correct law balancing needs, ability to pay, and fee escalation.
Whether unresolved financial issues (nanny expenses, future expert expenses) were addressed	District court must resolve all financial issues on remand.	Some costs may be beyond enforceable fee shifts and should be limited.	Remand required to address remaining financial issues as directed.
Whether the district court properly applied fault vs. reasonableness in fee determinations	Fault should be considered only to the extent of unreasonable fee escalation.	Fault-based reasoning may justify denying fees.	Court must apply objective reasonableness and only consider fault for escalation.

Martinson v. Martinson, 2010 ND 110 (ND 2010) (remand to reconsider attorney fees; balance needs and ability to pay; consider escalation)
Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 101 (ND 2007) (fault only for unreasonable escalation of fees)
Dronen v. Dronen, 2009 ND 70 (ND 2009) (fault/escalation standard in fee awards)
Bertsch v. Bertsch, 2006 ND 31 (ND 2006) (fee award considerations; reasonableness and escalation)
Berg v. Berg, 2000 ND 36 (ND 2000) (needs vs. ability to pay standard in fee awards)