State v. Huether
2010 ND 233
| N.D. | 2010Background
- June Hunt appealed a divorce judgment that awarded her 25% of Brett Hunt's retirement accounts, offset by a $9,000 restitution obligation for arson against Brett.
- The parties had a partial stipulation on retirement accounts (a 401(k) and a pension) and did not file a full property and debt listing.
- The district court found the accounts increased in value during marriage and awarded June 25% of that increase, deducting $9,000 for restitution.
- June had been convicted of arson and also damaged Brett's vehicle; both parties admitted infidelity and there were multiple separations and reconcilations during the marriage.
- The district court applied Ruff-Fischer factors and explained the disparity: Brett 75% and June 25% of the increased value, noting June's misconduct and health factors.
- On appeal, the supreme court upheld the district court’s division as not clearly erroneous, and approved offsetting June’s award to satisfy restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the division of retirement accounts was proper. | June argues arson disproportions justify less than 25%. | Hunt contends district court properly weighed factors; division supported by evidence. | Division not clearly erroneous; 75/25 split affirmed. |
| Whether offset of restitution constitutes proper payment method for the restitution award. | June argues offset doubles as punishment beyond stipulation. | Brett contends offset is a timely method to satisfy restitution. | Offset approved as a method of payment; not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the substantial disparity in awards. | June asserts not enough justification for disparity given misconduct. | Hunt asserts factors like conduct, health, and relationship dynamics warrant disparity. | District court sufficiently explained disparity; not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 101 (2007) (disparity in division must be explained; not required to be equal)
- Ulsaker v. White, 2009 ND 18 (2009) ( Ruff-Fischer factors guide equitable distribution; not every case equal)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952) (early Ruff-Fischer guidelines for division factors)
- Holden v. Holden, 2007 ND 29 (2007) (no fixed formula; circumstances control division)
- Marsden v. Koop, 2010 ND 196 (2010) (context for Ruff-Fischer factor application)
- Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58 (2008) (duration of marriage and conduct relevant to equity)
- Dronen v. Dronen, 2009 ND 70 (2009) (support for considering marital circumstances in division)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 2010 ND 100 (2010) (dissipation of marital assets as a factor)
- Wetzel v. Wetzel, 1999 ND 29 (1999) (guidance on substantial disparity in property division)