Varriano v. Varriano
2011 ND 112
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Ricky and Jill Becker married in 1989 and have four children; Ricky is a plastic surgeon with his own practice.
- Jill has a master’s in speech pathology; she worked part-time and has not worked outside the home since 2003.
- The couple owns Spa D’Athena and various entities; they arranged property division with Jill receiving Spa D’Athena.
- Ricky was awarded primary residential responsibility for the children; spousal and child support were reserved for trial.
- The district court later awarded Jill spousal support and ordered Jill to pay child support to Ricky, with specific amounts set.
- On appeal, Ricky challenges income calculations, including treatment of consulting/surgical fees and net incomes used for support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly calculated income for spousal support and child support | Becker asserts income was overstated; incorrect treatment of extra fees. | Becker contends the income figures reflect earning capacity and are supportable. | Income findings upheld for spousal support; child support needs remand for guidelines. |
| Whether the court properly applied child support guidelines and stated net incomes | Becker argues Jill’s net income was not properly determined and guidelines not followed. | Becker contends appropriate net income and deviations were warranted. | Remand required to apply guidelines and clearly state net incomes. |
| Whether Jill Becker’s income should be imputed or considered under self-employment | Becker argues imputing income due to unemployment/underemployment is appropriate. | Becker contends Jill’s self-employment income should be treated; voluntary-imputation not warranted. | Remand to determine proper imputation and net income with self-employment considered. |
| Whether permanent spousal support was appropriate or should have been rehabilitative | Becker argues rehabilitative/short-term support was appropriate given Jill’s prospects. | Becker maintains Jill is capable of rehabilitation but needs ongoing support due to disadvantage. | Spousal support affirmed as permanent; authority remanded for income findings but not reversed on reasoning. |
| Whether spousal support should terminate on Jill’s cohabitation | Becker argues cohabitation could alter support. | Becker contends cohabitation is not a sufficient change in circumstances to end support. | No error; court need not terminate upon cohabitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (N.D.) (spousal support factors; clearly erroneous standard)
- Lauer v. Lauer, 2000 ND 82 (N.D.) (child support findings; income as a fact)
- Halberg v. Halberg, 2010 ND 20 (N.D.) (child support guidelines; net income calculation requirement)
- Gunia v. Gunia, 2009 ND 32 (N.D.) (must clearly state income and support calculations)
- Berge v. Berge, 2006 ND 46 (N.D.) (guidelines application; income determination)
- Heinle v. Heinle, 2010 ND 5 (N.D.) (proper application of child support guidelines)
- Sack v. Sack, 2006 ND 57 (N.D.) (disadvantaged spouse doctrine; rehabilitative vs permanent)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 2010 ND 100 (N.D.) (rehabilitative vs permanent spousal support considerations)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 2007 ND 33 (N.D.) (permanent spousal support standards)
- Moilan v. Moilan, 1999 ND 103 (N.D.) (historical context of spousal support)