Rebel v. Rebel
2013 ND 116
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Helen and Rodney Rebel (married 1989) operated a family farm; they purchased significant parcels in 1993 and 2009 (≈1,200 acres total), including land bought from Rodney’s parents at $242/acre—substantially below market value.
- Rodney has a history of leukemia (in remission) and receives SSDI; one child was a minor at divorce.
- Helen filed for divorce in 2010 on irreconcilable differences; the district court awarded her primary residential responsibility and prospective child support of $238/month beginning April 1, 2012.
- The district court valued the net marital estate at $1,609,110.84 and divided assets unequally: Rodney received farm real estate, machinery, livestock, etc. (net $1,018,816.53); Helen received the marital home, cash payments and other assets (net $662,047.52); the court ordered staggered cash payments to Helen totaling $512,534.78.
- The court explained a $356,769 disparity in Rodney’s favor by citing (inter alia) the favorable family-land purchase, Rodney’s livelihood and health, and the risk of diminution from his parents’ bankruptcy; it did not discount the delayed payments to present value or award interest.
- Helen appealed, arguing the property division was inequitable and that she should receive interest / present-value adjustment on deferred payments and retroactive child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rebel) | Defendant's Argument (R. Rebel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable property distribution | Distribution is inequitable; court failed to justify $356,769 disparity and undervalued Helen's award | Rodney argued farm assets should remain with him and cash offsets equalize distribution | Court: Reverse and remand property distribution — district court did not adequately articulate justification for the disparity and failed to discount deferred payments to present value |
| Discounting/deferred payments (interest/present value) | Helen: delayed cash payments should include interest or be discounted to present value | Rodney: (implicit) payments as ordered suffice; he already provided some support pre-judgment | Held: Court remanded because trial court failed to discount periodic payments to present value or award interest, leaving the true disparity indeterminate |
| Allocation of mortgage on marital home | Helen: should not bear the home mortgage because it is secured by farm real estate | Rodney: trial record supports allocation; Helen had proposed to assume house debt in negotiations | Held: Affirmed — Helen failed to show the allocation was clearly erroneous, though the issue may be revisited on remand |
| Retroactive child support | Helen: entitled to support retroactive to filing (~$4,522) | Rodney: provided direct payments and expenses for the child; no interim order was sought | Held: Affirmed denial of retroactive support — trial court’s decision not to award retroactive support was supported by record evidence of Rodney’s direct payments and expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Kosobud v. Kosobud, 817 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 2012) (trial court must consider all marital assets and explain substantial disparity)
- Welder v. Welder, 520 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 1994) (periodic cash payments must be discounted to present value)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (establishing factors for equitable property division)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (Ruff–Fischer factors reaffirmed)
- Peterson v. Peterson, 600 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 1999) (spousal contributions enabling accumulation of assets warrant recognition)
- Marschner v. Marschner, 621 N.W.2d 339 (N.D. 2001) (preserving family farm is not paramount over other equitable factors)