Rebel v. Rebel, 2016 ND 144

Background

Helen and Rodney Rebel divorced after a long marriage (married 1989) during which they operated a farm/ranch; one child was a minor at divorce.
The trial court originally awarded Rodney most farm assets and a cash offset to Helen; this court remanded because the district court had not adequately explained the disparity favoring Rodney and failed to account for interest/present value of delayed payments (Rebel v. Rebel, 2013 ND 116, 833 N.W.2d 442).
On remand a new judge held a three‑day trial, valued the marital estate as of May 2, 2012 at about $1.994 million, allocated primarily farm assets to Rodney and the marital home and cash to Helen.
The court reaffirmed the remaining cash award of $410,207 to Helen (balance from the original judgment), concluded that awarding more would force liquidation of the farm, applied a 38% reduction to Rodney’s farm equity to approximate liquidation costs for comparison, and ordered 17‑year amortized payments with 4.5% interest starting May 2, 2012.
Helen appealed: she argued the court improperly considered speculative tax/liquidation consequences to justify the unequal division, made calculation errors on equipment valuation, and awarded an insufficient interest rate on delayed payments. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rebel)	Defendant's Argument (Rebel)	Held
Whether the unequal property division was justified	Court improperly relied on speculative/"phantom" tax/liquidation costs and did not follow Linrud/Kaiser limits; liquidation was not certain	Court permissibly considered tax and liquidation consequences because evidence (banker, accountant) made adverse tax/liquidation outcomes reasonably predictable; preserving farm viability was proper	Court: distribution adequately explained; not clearly erroneous; preserving farm and predicted liquidation consequences were valid bases for disparity
Whether court erred by reducing Rodney’s estate by 38% for liquidation in allocation math	Reduction was legally and factually unsupported — cannot rely on hypothetical tax effects that will not occur	Reduction was a pragmatic method to measure relative equities if forced liquidation occurred; evidence supported such costs	Court: alternative rationales (liquidation discount and bank cash‑flow testimony) supported award; affirmed
Whether machinery valuation contained a $27,745 arithmetic error	Asserted arithmetic error in machinery total	Court had applied an 8% depreciation adjustment (one‑half year) reducing machinery from $346,810 to $319,065.20, so no error	Court: findings explained depreciation computation; no clear error
Whether interest on delayed payments should have been at statutory judgment rate	Helen: should receive judgment rate (6.5%) for being financed over many years	Rodney: trial court has discretion to set appropriate interest rate (court chose 4.5%)	Court: trial court has broad discretion to set rate and start date; 4.5% was not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Rebel v. Rebel, 833 N.W.2d 442 (N.D. 2013) (remanding for explanation of disparity and present‑value/interest issues)
Ulsaker v. White, 717 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 2006) (origin of property not controlling under Ruff‑Fischer guidelines)
Welder v. Welder, 520 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 1994) (periodic payments without interest must be discounted to present value)
Gibbon v. Gibbon, 569 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 1997) (upholding distribution of farm assets to one spouse with offsetting monetary award to other)
Linrud v. Linrud, 574 N.W.2d 875 (N.D. 1998) (tax consequences considered only when liability is certain/short‑term; sets Kaiser factors)
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 474 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1991) (trial court should consider taxes only when recognition is required or will occur soon and can be reasonably predicted)
Dick v. Dick, 434 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 1989) (trial court may award interest at any appropriate rate; statutory judgment rate applies if judgment is silent)