State v. Bentz
2013 ND 43
N.D.2013Background
- Carl and Sandra Hoverson divorced; district court distributed marital property and ordered support and fees.
- Marital estate valued at about $14.5 million; Sandra received ~20% (~$2.8 million) and Carl ~80% (~$11.6 million).
- Carl’s farming businesses and land holdings produced substantial income; court valued his interests in several entities.
- Evidence showed short-term, later-in-life marriage with long periods of separation; Sandra spent substantial time in Florida.
- Spousal support awarded: Sandra $3,000 per month for two years; child support $3,002 per month; attorney’s fees awarded.
- Carl challenged property distribution, spousal/child support, and fees; Sandra cross-appealed on several points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the property distribution was clearly erroneous | Sandra argues distribution favored Carl and misapplied Ruff-Fischer factors. | Carl contends Sandra should have received more equalization or different allocation. | Not clearly erroneous; Ruff-Fischer factors supported the award. |
| Whether spousal support duration and amount were appropriate | Sandra contends she needs permanent support; amount insufficient. | Carl argues rehabilitative approach; supports limited duration. | Not clearly erroneous; court favored rehabilitative, two-year support. |
| Whether upward deviation from child support was proper | Sandra argues a greater deviation was warranted given Carl’s income. | Carl contends deviation not proven; no specific needs shown. | Not clearly erroneous; no evidence of needs supported deviation beyond baseline. |
| Whether attorney’s fees award was appropriate | Sandra seeks fees given disparity in assets and income. | Carl argues lack of basis for fee award. | Not an abuse of discretion; award upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wold v. Wold, 2008 ND 14 (N.D. 2008) (guidance on standard of review for property division)
- Ulsaker v. White, 2006 ND 133 (N.D. 2006) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines and asset valuation timing)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775 (N.D. 1952) (early Ruff-Fischer framework)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966) (Ruff-Fischer lineage)
- Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58 (N.D. 2008) (duration classification of marriages and clear-error standard)
- Orgaard v. Orgaard, 1997 ND 34 (N.D. 1997) (long-term vs short-term marriage threshold)
- Moilan v. Moilan, 1999 ND 103 (N.D. 1999) (rehabilitative versus permanent spousal support context)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 33 (N.D. 2007) (rehabilitative support considerations)
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (N.D. 2010) (permanent vs rehabilitative spousal support standards)
- Schmalle v. Schmalle, 1998 ND 201 (N.D. 1998) (burden of proof for deviation from child support guidelines)
- Jondahl v. Jondahl, 344 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1984) (attorney’s fees factors in divorce actions)