State v. Foss
2010 ND 239
| N.D. | 2010Background
- Duff and Kearns-Duff married in 1994 and obtained a divorce in 2010; the district court awarded Kearns-Duff physical custody of their two minor children.
- The court awarded Duff rehabilitative spousal support with a detailed payment schedule and allowed Kearns-Duff to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes.
- At the time of trial, Kearns-Duff earned about $600,000 annually as a radiologist; Duff was pursuing a doctoral program and had limited current income.
- The court evaluated best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1), finding slight preference to Duff on permanence of the custodial home and slight preference to Kearns-Duff on moral fitness, and relied on a section (m) analysis of recent financial contributions.
- The Supreme Court reversed the custody award, holding the district court impermissibly relied on recent financial contributions and remanded for reconsideration; spousal support was affirmed, and tax-dependency status remained to be revisited on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawful basis for custody award | Duff argues no legal basis to favor Kearns-Duff based on income. | Kearns-Duff argues the court's factors supported custody. | Custody reversed; misapplied law on financial contributions. |
| Use of recent financial contributions in custody | Duff contends recent income contributions improperly influenced custody. | Kearns-Duff contends factors supported the decision. | Impermissible reliance on recent financial contributions; remand for correct application. |
| Spousal support posture | Duff contends rehabilitative support is appropriate given education goals. | Kearns-Duff defends the court’s rehabilitative schedule and amounts. | Affirmed rehabilitative spousal support; not clearly erroneous. |
| Tax dependency | Duff argues he should bear the tax burden if awarded dependents. | Kearns-Duff intends to claim the dependents. | Remanded for potential modification on remand. |
| Remand scope | Duff seeks full remand for custody reconsideration under correct law. | Kearns-Duff agrees issues should be revisited on remand, including custody. | Remand to reconsider custody under correct legal framework; other rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sorenson v. Slater, 2010 ND 146, 786 N.W.2d 739 (ND Supreme Court 2010) (standard of review for custody—limited and deferential)
- Heinle v. Heinle, 2010 ND 5, 777 N.W.2d 590 (ND Supreme Court 2010) (best-interests factors; once applicable statutes; rational analysis)
- P.A. v. A.H.O., 2008 ND 194, 757 N.W.2d 58 (ND Supreme Court 2008) (income should not automatically determine custody; focus on disposition to provide)
- Lindberg v. Lindberg, 2009 ND 136, 770 N.W.2d 252 (ND Supreme Court 2009) (economic factors alone not determinative in best interests)
- Krueger v. Krueger, 2008 ND 90, 748 N.W.2d 671 (ND Supreme Court 2008) (Ruff-Fischer spousal support factors; rehabilitative vs permanent)
- Overland v. Overland, 2008 ND 6, 744 N.W.2d 67 (ND Supreme Court 2008) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines; needs and ability to pay)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 33, 728 N.W.2d 318 (ND Supreme Court 2007) (rehabilitative vs permanent spousal support distinction)
- Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77, 660 N.W.2d 586 (ND Supreme Court 2003) (consideration of earnings in support determinations)
- Staley v. Staley, 2004 ND 195, 688 N.W.2d 182 (ND Supreme Court 2004) (permanent spousal support policy emphasis)
- Greenwood v. Greenwood, 1999 ND 126, 596 N.W.2d 317 (ND Supreme Court 1999) (definition of permanent vs rehabilitative spousal support)