999 N.W.2d 192
N.D.2023Background
- Jennifer and Aron Williams divorced in 2018; Jennifer retained primary custody of their two children, and Aron was ordered to pay child support.
- Aron’s child support obligation was based on imputed income, originally as an experienced farmer, later modified based on reported wages and in-kind income.
- In 2022, after Jennifer sought to modify child support and other relief, a discovery dispute arose because Aron failed to provide full financial information.
- The district court found Aron failed to sufficiently document his income and thus imputed statewide average farmer income to him based on the Job Service report.
- Aron challenged the child support calculation, discovery sanctions (attorney’s fees), and the denial of his motion to reopen the evidentiary record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputed Income Calculation for Child Support | Income should reflect true earning capacity | Imputed income improperly based on wrong category | Imputation as “farmer” upheld; court’s finding affirmed |
| Use of Job Service Report as Income Benchmark | Statewide report is reliable and proper basis | Report inaccurate, unreliable for income imputation | Williams waived reliability challenge; court may rely |
| Denial of Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Record | No need to reopen; evidence was sufficient | Needed to clarify witness testimony, submit evidence | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Award of Attorney’s Fees for Discovery Violation | Aron evaded discovery, warranting sanctions | Made good faith effort to comply with discovery | Attorney’s fees awarded; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Updike v. Updike, 974 N.W.2d 360 (N.D. 2022) (standard of review for child support decisions)
- Schurmann v. Schurmann, 877 N.W.2d 20 (N.D. 2016) (requirement for reliable income information in child support cases)
- Eberle v. Eberle, 766 N.W.2d 477 (N.D. 2009) (appellate court does not reassess witness credibility)
- Vandal v. Leno, 843 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 2014) (motion to reopen record appropriate only for newly discovered evidence)
- Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695 (N.D. 1995) (waiver of evidentiary argument when not raised below)