920 N.W.2d 483
N.D.2018Background
- Chad and Kelli Schultz were together ~10.5 years including 1.5 years cohabitation, ~7.5 years married before separation, and ~2 years separated before final decree (divorce decree entered Jan. 17, 2018). District court treated the marriage as long‑term.
- Chad owned a 50% interest in three Nelson County farm quarters inherited in 2001; district court awarded the farmland to Chad but required post‑judgment equalization payments to Kelli and assigned a 4% interest rate to those payments.
- Parties disputed farmland valuation: Chad and his father offered lower per‑acre values; Kelli relied on the 2017 County Rents and Values survey. Court adopted values between the parties and placed Chad’s half interest at $236,160.
- The parties bought Face 2 Face Salon in 2010 (Chad $35,000; Kelli $5,000). Court awarded the Salon to Kelli and valued it at $40,000 (Chad argued $160,000).
- Chad held title jointly with his father to a Jamestown house (father built it with inheritance funds); district court included Chad’s one‑half interest in the marital estate and divided it equally.
- Chad participated in the NDPERS retirement plan with contributions during marriage; court split the NDPERS account equally and ordered a QDRO. Chad sought retention of the account; Kelli sought a Bullock‑style division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of marriage length (short v. long) | Marriage was eight years—court should not treat it as long‑term; assets brought in should remain with Chad | Consider cohabitation and time until decree; total association >10 years supports long‑term treatment | Court reasonably treated marriage as long‑term; not clearly erroneous |
| Farmland valuation | Lower per‑acre values (testimony from Chad/father); total value ~ $136k–$175k | Higher per‑acre value per state survey (~$1,476/acre) | Court chose values within parties’ ranges; valuation not clearly erroneous |
| Allocation of inherited farmland | Inherited pre‑marriage—should be allocated to Chad without reciprocal value to Kelli | Long‑term marriage and Ruff‑Fischer factors support equalization; Kelli entitled to share | Court allocated farmland to Chad but required equalization payments; allocation not clearly erroneous |
| Salon valuation | Higher value ($160k) based on recent net profits | Lower value ($40k) based on purchase price and owner/accountant opinion | Court accepted Kelli’s $40k valuation; not clearly erroneous |
| Inclusion of jointly‑titled house (father’s home) | Chad’s title was for estate planning; should not be marital property | Deed shows joint ownership; presumption includes jointly held property in marital estate | Court included Chad’s 1/2 interest; inclusion required and not clearly erroneous |
| Interest rate on post‑judgment equalization payments | Challenged 4% rate as unsupported | Kelli requested 4% in closing; courts have discretion to set interest | 4% rate not an abuse of discretion despite lack of explicit explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lill v. Lill, 520 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 1994) (Ruff‑Fischer guideline requirement for equitable division)
- Bladow v. Bladow, 665 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2003) (long‑term marriages generally support equal division)
- Hitz v. Hitz, 746 N.W.2d 732 (N.D. 2008) (no bright‑line for marriage length; duration is one Ruff‑Fischer factor)
- Buzick v. Buzick, 542 N.W.2d 756 (N.D. 1996) (short‑term marriages may permit unequal distributions returning pre‑marriage assets)
- Corbett v. Corbett, 628 N.W.2d 312 (N.D. 2001) (valuation findings reviewed for clear error)
- Hoverson v. Hoverson, 629 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 2001) (trial court valuations given deference; permissible choice between evidence not clearly erroneous)
- Dick v. Dick, 434 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 1989) (court may set interest on periodic property payments to achieve equitable distribution)
- Kostelecky v. Kostelecky, 714 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 2006) (owner testimony as admissible evidence of value)