Walstad v. Walstad
2013 ND 176
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Catherine Walstad and Richard Walstad divorced in 1994 via a stipulated property settlement that equally split marital assets, including Cook Sign Company.
- In 2009 Catherine sued, alleging Richard concealed marital assets before the divorce judgment by steering $50,000 in bonuses to two employees with an understanding they would repay after the divorce, reducing the business value and Catherine’s share.
- In 2010 Catherine sought to amend to plead punitive damages, which the district court denied; after a bench trial, it awarded Catherine $37,222.90 for concealment.
- On remand from Walstad I, the district court reaffirmed its award, treating Catherine’s claim as an independent action in equity and applying Ruff-Fischer guidelines with some consideration of economic fault.
- This Court held on remand that the district court did not follow the mandate, and its distribution was clearly erroneous and failed to award attorney fees; the matter was reversed and remanded for proper equitable distribution and fee determination.
- The Court ultimately remanded to reconsider the property distribution with appropriate weight given to Richard’s admitted economic fault and misconduct, and to award reasonable attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remand complied with the mandate to apply independent action in equity and Ruff-Fischer guidelines. | Walstad contends district court failed to follow the mandate and properly consider economic fault. | Walstad contends the court applied law on remand as directed. | No; remand did not follow the mandate; distribution was clearly erroneous. |
| Whether Richard’s economic fault/misconduct was properly weighed in the redistribution. | Walstad argues economic fault should be given significant weight in redistribution. | Walstad argues the award did not properly credit misconduct. | The distribution must give appropriate weight to Richard’s economic fault and misconduct. |
| Whether Catherine is entitled to attorney fees and costs for the action and appeal. | Walstad seeks fees under §14-05-23 as the sole cause of litigation. | Walstad questions entitlement and basis for sanctions/fees. | Attorney fees must be awarded on remand; the basis (statutory vs. sanction) requires explicit findings; the court abused discretion in not awarding them. |
| Whether seven percent interest remains appropriate after remand. | Walstad contends interest should reflect the economic fault adjustments. | Walstad maintains the seven percent interest per the judgment remains correct. | Remand requires reevaluation; the seven percent rate may not stand as originally justified. |
| Whether the district court’s overall result on remand violated the mandate or law of the case. | Walstad argues the court’s result did not reflect the mandate to apply Boyle Ruff-Fischer economic fault. | Walstad emphasizes adherence to independent action framework. | The remand did not faithfully implement the mandate; the court must reconsider with proper law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walstad v. Walstad, 821 N.W.2d 770 (2012 ND) (remand for proper application of Ruff-Fischer guidelines in independent equity action)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 410 N.W.2d 508 (ND 1987) (independent action in equity to obtain relief from judgment distinguished from collateral attack)
- Theis v. Theis, 534 N.W.2d 26 (ND 1995) (economic fault weight supports redistribution; dissipation/misconduct considered in equitable distribution)
- Kautzman v. Kautzman, 585 N.W.2d 561 (ND 1998) (court should address attorney fees when one party’s actions increase costs of litigation)