Weigel v. Weigel, 2015 ND 270

Shawn and LaRinda Weigel divorced after separating in 2012; they have two minor children and shared residential responsibility.
Marital assets included three businesses (LDL Clean, LDL Spotless, LDL Properties) co‑owned by LaRinda, a marital home, a lake cabin, and rental properties in Minot.
At trial the district court valued and distributed marital property nearly equally (Shawn: $510,123; LaRinda: $504,897) and awarded LaRinda her interests in the three businesses (combined valuation the court adopted: ~$442,868).
Post‑trial, the court reopened child support calculation on a temporary remand; parties submitted tax returns and worksheets but LaRinda requested an evidentiary hearing which was denied. The court adopted Shawn’s calculations, offset obligations, and ordered LaRinda to pay Shawn $1,280/month (effective Oct. 1, 2014).
Shawn appealed property valuations and distribution; LaRinda cross‑appealed the child support determination arguing denial of a hearing and improper income imputation from a one‑time building sale.

Issue	Shawn's Argument	LaRinda's Argument	Held
Valuation of LaRinda’s businesses	Court erred; should adopt Shawn’s expert valuations (much higher)	Court may rely on LaRinda’s valuation evidence	Court affirmed — valuations were within range of evidence and not clearly erroneous
Treatment of claimed debt to Shawn’s father	Debt (~$25k–$60k) was marital and should reduce Shawn’s assets	Ledger sheets were fabricated for trial; debt not proven	Court affirmed — district court reasonably found ledger unreliable and allocated assets accordingly
Alleged economic misconduct/dissipation by LaRinda	LaRinda dissipated sale proceeds (≈$600k) and committed economic fraud warranting unequal distribution	Proceeds were used to pay business/tax debts and buy new office property; no misconduct found	Court affirmed — no clear error; district court reasonably declined to find economic misconduct
Child support determination and due process	(Shawn) Post‑trial submissions were proper updates and court permissibly used them	(LaRinda) Denial of evidentiary hearing and imputing income from a one‑time sale violated due process and misapplied guidelines	Reversed and remanded — lack of evidentiary hearing deprived LaRinda of due process; child support recalculation required

Adams v. Adams, 863 N.W.2d 232 (discusses standard for valuing and distributing marital property)
Hoverson v. Hoverson, 828 N.W.2d 510 (Ruff‑Fischer guideline factors for equitable property distribution)
Grinaker v. Grinaker, 553 N.W.2d 204 (marital property valued as of trial date)
Kosobud v. Kosobud, 817 N.W.2d 384 (financial misconduct/dissipation can justify unequal distribution)
Larson v. Larson, 582 N.W.2d 657 (post‑hearing submissions without opportunity for cross‑examination can violate due process in child support proceedings)
State ex rel. K.B. v. Bauer, 763 N.W.2d 462 (court may look beyond past earnings where not reflective of present/future earning capacity)