Werven v. Werven
2016 ND 60
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Ralph and Laurita Werven divorced in 2014 after a marriage beginning in 1993; Ralph (55) was 50% owner/VP of Grain Systems Repair, Inc. (GSR) and earned about $64,000/year; Laurita (53) had health problems and limited employment history.
- District court distributed marital property: Ralph received ~$657,748 in assets and ~$641,997 in debt; Laurita received ~$67,075 in assets and ~$30,360 in debt, including Parcel Three (real estate) and a decal-cutting machine; court awarded Laurita $1,000/month spousal support until age 65 (or earlier events).
- Ralph filed post-judgment motions to alter/amend or for a new trial and to stay the judgment; he later transferred his GSR interest (claiming a buyout) and disputed ownership/ability to deliver the decal cutter and ability to pay support.
- The district court found Ralph’s testimony not credible, concluded his transfer of GSR interest was voluntary and self-induced to avoid support, and held him in contempt for failing to pay spousal support and for not transferring the decal cutter; it ordered payment and turnover or incarceration.
- Parties later stipulated a $2,500 cash payment to Laurita for the decal cutter’s value; on appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the divorce judgment and most post-judgment rulings, but modified contempt as to the decal cutter delivery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Laurita) | Defendant's Argument (Ralph) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property distribution — Parcel Three | Parcel Three is Laurita’s marital property and award was proper | Parcel Three should be his to convey to his daughters under a 1991 decree | Affirmed: award to Laurita not clearly erroneous |
| Property distribution — decal cutter | Award to Laurita appropriate (used in household business) | Cutter owned by GSR, not Ralph, so he could not deliver it | Court erred treating cutter as personal property, but moot after $2,500 settlement; contempt modified accordingly |
| Spousal support award | $1,000/month appropriate under Ruff–Fischer factors | Ralph lacks ability to pay after losing GSR interest | Affirmed: award supported by findings; Ralph’s inability to pay found self-induced and not credible |
| Contempt for nonpayment and nondelivery | Enforcement appropriate; contemnor had ability to pay/deliver | Lack of ability to comply (no GSR interest; cutter owned by GSR) | Contempt for failing to pay support affirmed; contempt for failing to deliver cutter reversed/modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Kosobud v. Kosobud, 817 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 2012) (property-distribution findings reviewed for clear error)
- Koble v. Koble, 743 N.W.2d 797 (N.D. 2008) (standard for clearly erroneous factual findings)
- Weigel v. Weigel, 871 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 2015) (all property owned by either spouse considered marital property)
- Nuveen v. Nuveen, 795 N.W.2d 308 (N.D. 2011) (valuation of business interests included in marital estate)
- Sommers v. Sommers, 660 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 2003) (treatment of business interests in property division)
- Kluck v. Kluck, 561 N.W.2d 263 (N.D. 1997) (business-entity interests in marital estate)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 801 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 2011) (Ruff–Fischer factors govern spousal support)
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 792 N.W.2d 916 (N.D. 2010) (listing Ruff–Fischer factors)
- Hammeren v. Hammeren, 823 N.W.2d 482 (N.D. 2012) (standards for motions to alter/amend or for relief from judgment)
- Rothberg v. Rothberg, 727 N.W.2d 771 (N.D. 2007) (burden to show material change in circumstances to modify support)
- Lohstreter v. Lohstreter, 623 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 2001) (no modification when change is self-induced)
- Sall v. Sall, 804 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2011) (contempt requires intentional, inexcusable disobedience)
- Holkesvig v. Welte, 809 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 2012) (inability to comply is defense to contempt)