Peterson v. Peterson
2016 ND 157
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Robert and Vineca Peterson divorced in 1996; court ordered Robert to pay $1,500/month spousal support until Vineca died or remarried.
- Vineca petitioned in January 2015 for contempt after Robert stopped paying support beginning September 2014; Robert cross-moved to reduce/terminate support based on retirement.
- District court found Robert in contempt for willfully failing to pay, denied his motion to modify or terminate support, and awarded Vineca $5,000 in attorneys fees as a remedial contempt sanction.
- District court relied on Robert’s 2014 and 2015 tax returns and other transactions (sale of Texas home, large expenditures, gifting Montana land, and significant home-building expenditures) to conclude he had funds and voluntarily redirected assets.
- Robert argued inability to pay due to retirement; court concluded his retirement did not eliminate present ability to pay and that changes were not a valid defense where assets were expended elsewhere.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robert should be held in civil contempt for failing to pay spousal support | Vineca: Robert willfully disobeyed the order and had funds to pay | Robert: He was unable to pay after retirement (not willful) | Court: Affirmed contempt — evidence showed Robert had funds and voluntarily redirected assets |
| Whether spousal support should be modified/terminated due to retirement (material change) | Vineca: No material change; Robert still able to pay | Robert: Retirement materially reduced his ability to pay; support should be reduced/terminated | Court: Denied modification — no clear error finding Robert retained ability to pay; expenditures were voluntary |
| Whether inability to pay is a defense to contempt | Vineca: Not applicable; Robert had means | Robert: Inability to pay defeats contempt | Court: Inability to pay is a defense only if proven; Robert failed to meet burden; contempt stands |
| Whether attorneys fees may be awarded as remedial sanction in contempt proceedings | Vineca: Fees are compensable under contempt statute | Robert: Award was an abuse of discretion | Court: Affirmed $5,000 fee award as within discretion under remedial contempt statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Montgomery, 667 N.W.2d 611 (N.D. 2003) (standard for civil contempt and appellate review)
- BeauLac v. BeauLac, 649 N.W.2d 210 (N.D. 2002) (contempt requires willful, inexcusable violation)
- Sall v. Sall, 804 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2011) (elements for contempt under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-10)
- Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 598 N.W.2d 499 (N.D. 1999) (must obey court order until modified or reversed)
- Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (burden on alleged contemnor to prove inability to comply)
- Woodward v. Woodward, 776 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 2009) (trial court broad discretion in contempt findings)
- Krueger v. Krueger, 840 N.W.2d 613 (N.D. 2013) (standard of review for contempt and modification determinations)
- Schulte v. Kramer, 820 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2012) (burden and standard for proving material change to modify spousal support)
- Rothberg v. Rothberg, 727 N.W.2d 771 (N.D. 2007) (definition of material change and self-induced changes)
- Lauer v. Lauer, 609 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 2000) (attorneys fees may be awarded as part of remedial contempt compensation)