Van Beek v. Van Beek
2025 ND 96
N.D.2025Background
- Darrell and Tami Van Beek divorced after a marriage beginning in 2007, with three children.
- After a bench trial, property was divided: Tami received farmland and $700,000 in equity; Darrell received crops, land rent, and vehicles.
- Tami was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Darrell was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $48,000/year.
- The court found Darrell committed domestic violence, leading to Tami’s attorney’s fee award under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-29(4).
- Darrell appealed, challenging property valuation/distribution, exclusion of his insurance agent’s testimony, award of attorney’s fees, child support calculation, and residential responsibility.
- The Supreme Court affirmed most findings but reversed the inclusion of $198,823 as potential income in the marital estate, remanding for allocation and attorney’s fee assessment regarding hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Van Beek (Appellant) Argument | Van Beek (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breakup & valuation of farmland | Allocation and breakup ignored family farm; valuations incorrect | Farmland not a viable business; relied on record evidence for valuation | Court found no error in farmland allocation/valuation; not a sustainable business |
| Exclusion of insurance agent testimony | Testimony should have been allowed to rebut crop values | Pre-trial disclosure rules and no adequate offer of proof made | No abuse of discretion; issue not preserved due to no offer of proof |
| Inclusion of potential income ($198k) | Error to include income from unfarmed, rented land | Considered economic fault and dissipated asset as basis for unequal division | Error to increase marital estate for "potential" income; reversed/remanded |
| Primary residential responsibility/child's preference | Child wished to live with Darrell, court should have weighed preference higher | Child not mature, preference not controlling; domestic violence presumption applies | No clear error in not weighing preference; presumption properly applied |
| Child support (in-kind income) | Argued in-kind income should not be included | In-kind income is properly counted under law | No misapplication; in-kind income properly considered |
| Attorney’s fees (divorce/appeal) | No finding on financial hardship; appealed award | Statute mandates fees unless hardship is shown | Remanded for finding on whether fee award causes undue hardship on Darrell |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitzan v. Kitzan, 985 N.W.2d 717 (N.D. 2023) (standard for reviewing findings of fact under clearly erroneous standard)
- Swanson v. Swanson, 921 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 2019) (law does not mandate equal, only equitable, property division)
- Willprecht v. Willprecht, 941 N.W.2d 556 (N.D. 2020) (Ruff-Fischer factors for equitable distribution)
- Berdahl v. Berdahl, 977 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2022) (property valuation standards in divorce)
- Orwig v. Orwig, 955 N.W.2d 34 (N.D. 2021) (credibility/deference to trial court in property division)
- Boeckel v. Boeckel, 785 N.W.2d 213 (N.D. 2010) (standard for reviewing residential responsibility)
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 792 N.W.2d 916 (N.D. 2010) (custody finding reversal standard)
- Halvorson v. Halvorson, 482 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 1992) (economic fault and dissipation in property division)
- Updike v. Updike, 974 N.W.2d 360 (N.D. 2022) (child support review standards)
- Kemmet v. Kemmet, 5 N.W.3d 509 (N.D. 2024) (deference to trial court on credibility findings in bench trials)