Rustad v. Rustad
2013 ND 185
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Rick and Svetlana Rustad married February 2008 and have one child born in 2011.
- The couple lived in Kindred, ND; Svetlana is a Russian citizen and permanent US resident; Rick is self-employed as a software consultant.
- May 2012, Rick filed for divorce; a parenting investigation recommended Rick have primary residential responsibility.
- The district court initially awarded Svetlana primary residential responsibility, distributed assets, ordered Rick to pay child support, and granted Svetlana rehabilitative spousal support of $900/mo for six months.
- An interim parenting arrangement since August 2012 kept the child with each parent on a set schedule; an extensive parenting investigation was completed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, reversing the primary residential responsibility award and remanding for explicit best-interest findings; upheld property division and rehabilitative spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary residential responsibility—whether clearly erroneous. | Rustad argues findings insufficient for best interests. | Svetlana contends evidence supports award. | Remanded for explicit best-interest findings. |
| Property valuation and distribution. | Rustad contends asset valuations are wrong. | Court’s valuations within range of evidence. | Not clearly erroneous. |
| Rehabilitative spousal support award. | Rustad argues support unnecessary and unjustified. | Svetlana needs transition to self-sufficiency. | Not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71 (ND Supreme Court (2013)) (standard for review of primary residential responsibility; must consider best-interest factors; findings must be specific.)
- Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228 (ND 2012) (requires sufficient specificity in findings to explain how factors apply.)
- Datz v. Dosch, 2013 ND 148 (ND 2013) (discusses sufficiency of factual findings and reliability of reasoning.)
- Krueger v. Hau Tran, 2012 ND 227 (ND 2012) (alienation considerations in custody decisions.)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (ND Supreme Court (1952)) (factors for spousal support considerations.)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (ND (1966)) (list of Ruff v. Ruff factors for spousal support analysis.)
- Eberle v. Eberle, 2010 ND 107 (ND 2010) (property division guidelines in dissolution proceedings.)