Schmuck v. Schmuck
2016 ND 87
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Richard and Alane (Dosmann) Schmuck were married ~27 years, each 48 at divorce; three children; Dosmann worked mostly part-time as a paraprofessional and other lower‑wage jobs; Schmuck had military service, retirement, and VA disability benefits.
- Dosmann filed for divorce in Aug. 2014; the parties submitted a partial stipulation; bench trial followed; district court adopted stipulation except for Schmuck’s gross income and made detailed Ruff‑Fischer findings.
- District court awarded Dosmann 55% of the marital estate, denied spousal support, and declined to retain jurisdiction to award future spousal support; Dosmann appealed those rulings.
- Key factual findings: court found Schmuck’s annual gross income $79,535 (including retirement and VA benefits); Dosmann’s projected annual gross income $35,643 (school job, part‑time cleaning, summer work, and some retirement/other payments); child support was included as income in near‑term calculations.
- Court found both parties’ expenses left little margin, and that after assignment of debts, tax liabilities, property payments and child support obligations Schmuck lacked present ability to pay spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of spousal support was clearly erroneous | Dosmann: court undervalued Schmuck’s earning ability and understated her need (including miscalculating child support duration), so spousal support was required | Schmuck: district court properly applied Ruff‑Fischer factors; after debts/obligations he lacks ability to pay | Affirmed — court’s findings on income, needs, ability to pay, and overall Ruff‑Fischer balancing were not clearly erroneous |
| Whether district court erred in computing Schmuck’s income | Dosmann: court omitted prior employer income and understated overtime/earning ability | Schmuck: used appropriate, non‑speculative present income method and included retirement/VA benefits | Affirmed — $79,535 finding supported by evidence; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether district court erred in computing Dosmann’s income | Dosmann: court overstated summer earnings and part‑time income | Schmuck: court’s estimates fall within evidence range; modest errors do not invalidate support finding | Affirmed — small overestimate (~$1,100) did not render spousal‑support decision clearly erroneous |
| Whether court should have retained jurisdiction to award future spousal support | Dosmann: reliance on Branson — court should reserve jurisdiction because future need/ability could change | Schmuck: no basis; Dosmann not a disadvantaged spouse seeking rehabilitation; court’s findings show no present need requiring reservation | Affirmed — district court permissibly declined to retain jurisdiction given findings (no career sacrifice, ability to work, Schmuck’s limited ability to pay) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvey v. Harvey, 855 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 2014) (Ruff‑Fischer guideline framework for spousal support)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (origin of Ruff‑Fischer considerations)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1952) (Ruff factors for spousal support)
- Branson v. Branson, 411 N.W.2d 395 (N.D. 1987) (retention of jurisdiction where rehabilitative need and possible future ability to pay exist)
- Mertz v. Mertz, 858 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 2015) (emphasizing comprehensive Ruff‑Fischer analysis over disadvantaged‑spouse doctrine)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 728 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2007) (permanent spousal support appropriate when equitable rehabilitation is not possible)
- Lynnes v. Lynnes, 747 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 2008) (district court valuation within evidence range will not be set aside)
- Solem v. Solem, 757 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2008) (attorney fees on appeal in divorce require need of requester and ability to pay of other spouse)