Schiff v. Schiff, 2013 ND 142

Deborah and Jerome Schiff married in 1976; three adult children. Divorce trial held after Jerome filed in 2011.
At trial: Jerome (59) owned a plumbing business and farmland; Deborah (58) a longtime registered nurse employed by county public health.
District court granted divorce, found both parties equally responsible for dissolution, divided marital estate (total value ~ > $1M). Deborah received assets netting ~$466,318 (including home and cabin) and a cash equalization payment of $45,146; Jerome received business and farmland netting ~$556,610.
District court denied Deborah's request for permanent spousal support, explaining she is able-bodied, currently employed, can work until typical retirement, and received sufficient marital equity.
Deborah appealed, arguing the court failed to apply Ruff–Fischer factors adequately, erred by awarding Jerome income-producing property, misvalued assets, and excluded certain debts (medical bill and portion of attorney fees) from marital debt.
The majority affirmed the judgment; a dissent would have reversed and remanded on spousal support and property distribution grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of spousal support	Deborah: court failed to apply Ruff–Fischer factors and did not assess her needs vs. Jerome's ability to pay	Jerome: Deborah is able-bodied, employed, can work until retirement, and received adequate marital assets	Affirmed — court’s findings (age, health, earnings, assets) permit deducing no need for spousal support; not clearly erroneous
Award of income-producing property to husband	Deborah: awarding all income-producing assets to Jerome while denying spousal support forces her to deplete her distribution	Jerome: court considered parties’ requests, history (farm purchased in 1995), and sought equitable distribution	Affirmed — court’s property allocation supported by evidence; Marschner distinguished on facts (wife not a homemaker; larger estate here)
Valuation of marital assets	Deborah: court misvalued home and appliances	Jerome: valuations were within the evidentiary range	Affirmed — district court valuations were within evidence and presumed correct
Exclusion of certain post-separation debts (medical, attorney fees) from marital debt	Deborah: medical bill and part of attorney fees incurred before divorce should be marital debt	Jerome: court treated some post-separation debts as non-marital or separately assigned responsibility	Affirmed (despite minor error on medical bill): any error was de minimis given large estate and not reversible error

Woodward v. Woodward, 830 N.W.2d 82 (N.D. 2013) (spousal support review; Ruff–Fischer factors and standard of review)
Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (Ruff–Fischer framework authority)
Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (origination of factors for equitable distribution/spousal support)
Marschner v. Marschner, 621 N.W.2d 339 (N.D. 2001) (reversal where spouse awarded cash while other kept income-producing farm and spousal support denied)
Dronen v. Dronen, 764 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 2009) (valuation of property standard of review)
Paulson v. Paulson, 783 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 2010) (trial court must analyze needs and ability to pay; cannot apply minimalist self-supporting rule)