969 N.W.2d 430
N.D.2022Background
- Michael and Tanya Pomarleau married in 1999, separated in June 2018, and have three children; district court entered divorce judgment and amended judgment after trial in 2020–2021.
- District court (original and amended judgments) calculated child support, allocated child tax credits, divided the marital estate, and ordered an equity payment from Tanya to Michael, offset in part by health-insurance premiums Tanya paid.
- Tanya changed jobs pretrial from commission-based to salaried work, reducing her income; the court used her current salaried income for child support, finding her change legitimate.
- The court ordered oil royalty income to be split evenly between the parties as part of property division, but included all interim royalty receipts on Michael’s gross income for child-support calculation and omitted Tanya’s share.
- Both parties appealed: Michael challenged the calculation of both parties’ incomes (royalties and Tanya’s job change), property valuations, and offsets; Tanya cross-appealed certain accounting adjustments and royalty calculations.
- Supreme Court affirmed most property-division and tax-credit allocations but reversed and remanded on income calculation for child support because royalties were misallocated in income computations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tanya voluntarily reduced income such that past higher income should be imputed | Michael: Tanya intentionally reduced income; use prior higher or average income for child support | Tanya: Job change was legitimate (stability, child care); use current salaried income | Court: Affirmed trial court — job change was legitimate; using current salary was permissible and supported by evidence |
| Whether royalty income was properly allocated in child-support income calculations | Michael: Trial court overstated his income by including all royalties and omitted Tanya’s share | Tanya: Court divided royalties as property; did not need to include interim share in her income calculation | Court: Reversed and remanded — royalties were split for property purposes but child-support income must reflect the parties’ proper shares (Michael overstated; Tanya understated) |
| Allocation of child tax credits | Michael: Challenged allocation for certain years | Tanya: Supported district court allocation | Court: Affirmed district court allocation — not clearly erroneous |
| Valuation and distribution of marital estate (including offsets for health insurance, withdrawals, business debts) | Michael: Challenged multiple valuations, alleged accounting omissions and double-counting | Tanya: Defended valuations and allocations made by court | Court: Affirmed property valuations and distributions as supported by evidence; trivial accounting issues immaterial to overall equitable division |
Key Cases Cited
- Eubanks v. Fisketjon, 2021 ND 124, 962 N.W.2d 427 (mixed standards of review apply to child support determinations)
- Gooss v. Gooss, 2020 ND 233, 951 N.W.2d 247 (failure to properly apply child support guidelines is an error of law)
- Logan v. Bush, 2000 ND 203, 621 N.W.2d 314 (court may impute income for voluntary employment changes; discretion in examining reasons)
- Ulsaker v. White, 2006 ND 133, 717 N.W.2d 567 (presumption that property is marital; court must value marital estate for equitable division)
- Schultz v. Schultz, 2018 ND 259, 920 N.W.2d 483 (court must equitably divide marital estate under Ruff-Fischer guidelines; valuation standards)
- Puklich v. Puklich, 2019 ND 154, 930 N.W.2d 593 (appellate review considers district court findings as whole; immaterial misstatements do not require reversal)