Williams v. Williams
2015 ND 129
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Ellen and Ivan Williams married in 1972 and divorced after a 2012 suit; both were 62 at trial.
- Ellen was primarily a homemaker, worked intermittent jobs, and earned about $25,000/year from Farm and Ranch Guide.
- Ivan worked as a salesperson with net pay about $4,700 every four weeks plus roughly $1,000 monthly bonus; he plans to retire at 65.
- The district court divided the marital estate: Ellen received $202,577 and Ivan $161,867; awarded Ellen attorney fees and spousal support of $1,250/month for four years.
- Both parties had extramarital affairs (Ivan before separation; Ellen after separation); court considered conduct when awarding attorney fees but did not base spousal support solely on conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal support should be permanent or rehabilitative | Ellen: permanent support warranted due to age, homemaker role, limited earning capacity | Ivan: rehabilitative support appropriate given available asset division and potential for Ellen to work | Court: Award of rehabilitative support (4 years at $1,250/mo) upheld — not clearly erroneous; court may modify if circumstances change |
| Whether court miscalculated Ivan’s income and thus support amount | Ellen: court erred using Ivan’s net pay every four weeks and failed to fully account for bonuses; comparability of gross vs net income misstated needs | Ivan: court appropriately found earnings based on evidence presented (net pay plus bonus) | Court: findings on incomes supported by record; no requirement to use strictly gross or net income — award amount and duration not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the court improperly compared Ellen’s gross to Ivan’s net income | Ellen: court should have used consistent income basis for comparison | Ivan: court made factual findings on each party’s income from evidence | Court: no legal requirement to use gross or net exclusively; factual findings acceptable and presumptively correct |
| Whether the court failed to consider Ivan’s infidelity in awarding spousal support/fees | Ellen: infidelity should increase support/asset award | Ivan: conduct is only one Ruff-Fischer factor and not determinative | Court: conduct was considered; court awarded attorney fees to Ellen for Ivan’s conduct but did not base spousal support solely on infidelity — decision not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. McCarthy, 856 N.W.2d 762 (N.D. 2014) (spousal support findings reviewed for clear error)
- Peterson v. Peterson, 788 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 2010) (lists Ruff-Fischer factors for spousal support)
- Lindberg v. Lindberg, 770 N.W.2d 252 (N.D. 2009) (use of Ruff-Fischer guidelines)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 728 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2007) (distinguishes rehabilitative and permanent spousal support)
- Greenwood v. Greenwood, 596 N.W.2d 317 (N.D. 1999) (rehabilitative support purpose)
- Rothberg v. Rothberg, 711 N.W.2d 219 (N.D. 2006) (court may modify support upon material change; attorney-fee balancing test)
- Ratajczak v. Ratajczak, 565 N.W.2d 491 (N.D. 1997) (conduct is only one factor for support awards)
- Krueger v. Grand Forks County, 852 N.W.2d 354 (N.D. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discretionary rulings)