Rasmussen v. Harvey, 888 N.W.2d 543

Christine Rasmussen Harvey and Jerry Harvey divorced in January 2014; they have three minor children and Rasmussen was awarded primary residential responsibility.
In December 2015 Rasmussen moved to modify Jerry’s parenting time and sought a contempt finding against him.
In April 2016 the district court found Jerry in contempt, reduced his parenting time, and ordered him to pay Rasmussen $25,610 in attorney’s fees and costs, citing both the contempt statute and the divorce attorney-fee statute.
Jerry appealed, challenging (1) the contempt finding and parenting-time modification as unsupported by findings, and (2) the attorney-fee award as lacking the required analysis of parties’ needs and ability to pay.
The Supreme Court affirmed the contempt finding and parenting-time modification but reversed and remanded the attorney-fee award for further findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred in finding defendant in contempt	Rasmussen argued defendant violated court orders and contempt finding was supported	Harvey argued findings were insufficient to support contempt	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; findings adequate for review
Whether district court erred in modifying parenting time	Rasmussen argued modification was warranted based on defendant’s conduct	Harvey argued modification lacked sufficient factual findings	Affirmed — modification is not clearly erroneous
Whether district court properly awarded attorney’s fees and costs	Rasmussen argued fees justified as remedial sanction and under divorce statute	Harvey argued court failed to balance needs and ability to pay and omitted findings on Rasmussen’s need	Reversed and remanded — court failed to provide required findings under the divorce-fee statute because it did not analyze Rasmussen’s need when citing that statute
Whether appellate attorney’s fees should be awarded to Rasmussen	Rasmussen requested fees for this appeal under the divorce statute	Harvey opposed	Denied — appellate fee request denied

Peterson v. Peterson, 883 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 2016) (district court has broad discretion in contempt matters)
Schurmann v. Schurmann, 877 N.W.2d 20 (N.D. 2016) (parenting-time modification reviewed for clear error)
Curtiss v. Curtiss, 886 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2016) (trial court must adequately explain evidentiary and legal basis for decisions)
Topolski v. Topolski, 844 N.W.2d 875 (N.D. 2014) (findings sufficient if they allow appellate review)
Larson v. Larson, 878 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 2016) (attorney-fee award in divorce requires balancing needs and ability to pay)
Wanttaja v. Wanttaja, 873 N.W.2d 911 (N.D. 2016) (factors for balancing needs and ability include property, incomes, liquidity, and whether one party increased litigation time)
Reiser v. Reiser, 621 N.W.2d 348 (N.D. 2001) (same balancing factors for fee awards)
Datz v. Dosch, 846 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2014) (remand required where court addressed ability to pay but not recipient’s need)
Deyle v. Deyle, 825 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 2012) (remand for clearer findings and explanation on attorney-fee awards)
Martinson v. Martinson, 783 N.W.2d 633 (N.D. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for attorney-fee awards)