Tarver v. Tarver, 931 N.W.2d 187

Daniel and Sarah Tarver were married in 2000; Daniel filed for divorce in June 2017 and the case proceeded to trial in October 2018.
On July 10, 2018 the parties read proposed settlement terms into the record but acknowledged several essential terms remained unresolved and asked the court to keep a trial date.
The parties were unable to finalize a written settlement; Sarah later asked the court to enforce the July 10 stipulations, which the court denied as not final.
At trial the court accepted Daniel’s valuations of certain property and awarded Sarah $8,800/month in permanent spousal support and $5,000/month child support, but did not require insurance to secure support.
Both parties appealed the spousal support determination; Sarah also challenged enforcement of the July 10 stipulations, property division, pension valuation, and failure to require insurance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the July 10 oral stipulations were enforceable	Tarver (Sarah): oral stipulations read into record were binding under N.D.R.Ct. 11.3	Tarver (Daniel): stipulations were conditional/incomplete and not a final agreement	Court: stipulations were conditional and lacked essential, definite terms; not enforceable
Whether Rule 11.3 required enforcement of the July 10 stipulations	Sarah: Rule 11.3 makes on-the-record stipulations binding	Daniel: since no final agreement, Rule 11.3 does not apply	Court: did not decide Rule 11.3 application because stipulations were not an enforceable contract
Whether the district court erred in awarding spousal support amount and duration	Sarah: sought $15,000/month permanent support	Daniel: proposed $8,800/month for five years; court purported to adopt Daniel’s amount but extended duration	Court: reversed and remanded because the court failed to make findings about Sarah’s need and Daniel’s ability to pay and otherwise gave no adequate reasoning for amount/duration
Whether property division and related orders (e.g., pension valuation, insurance for support) stand	Sarah: challenged valuations and absence of security for support	Daniel: accepted certain valuations and opposed enforcement requests	Court: remanded spousal support; noted property division may be revisited in light of any changed spousal support but did not otherwise alter property rulings now

Eberle v. Eberle, 766 N.W.2d 477 (N.D. 2009) (court must equitably distribute marital property and recognize valid settlements)
Aaker v. Aaker, 338 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 1983) (oral stipulations read into record generally binding when final and acted on)
Stout v. Fisher Industries, Inc., 603 N.W.2d 52 (N.D. 1999) (courts will not enforce contracts that are vague, indefinite, or leave essential terms for future agreement)
Holbach v. Holbach, 784 N.W.2d 472 (N.D. 2010) (indefiniteness as to essential elements prevents enforceability of agreement)
Lumley v. Kapusta, 878 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 2016) (existence and terms of oral contracts are factual questions reviewed for clear error)
Knudson v. Knudson, 916 N.W.2d 793 (N.D. 2018) (spousal support is a factual finding; court must consider Ruff-Fischer factors)
Lindberg v. Lindberg, 770 N.W.2d 252 (N.D. 2009) (appellate review requires sufficient trial court findings explaining spousal-support decision)
Allmon v. Allmon, 894 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 2017) (property division and spousal support are interrelated and may need joint reconsideration)