Willits v. Job Service of North Dakota
2011 ND 135
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Chad Crandall and Heidi Crandall married in 1995 and have three children.
- Heidi filed for divorce in July 2009; trial occurred in September 2010.
- District court awarded Chad primary residential responsibility and ordered Chad to pay Heidi $680 monthly child support.
- Court distributed marital property with Chad receiving $44,244.99 and Heidi $42,701.00 in net personal property after debts; debt allocations were specified.
- Chad and Heidi appealed; district court declined to stay Chad’s child support pending appeal.
- This Court affirms property division, reverses the child support award, and remands for recalculation under guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a custodial parent pay child support to the noncustodial parent? | Heidi argues deviation from guidelines allows custodial paying to noncustodial due to time with children. | Chad contends guidelines do not authorize custodial-to-noncustodial support. | The court held custodial parent cannot be ordered to pay child support to noncustodial parent; reversed and remanded. |
| Was the award of child support properly justified under the guidelines or proper deviation shown? | Heidi asserts court properly considered guidelines and time with children. | Chad asserts insufficient findings and no clear deviation basis under §75-02-04.1-09. | The court held no adequate findings or income determinations; deviation not properly supported; reversed and remanded for proper calculation. |
| Did the district court correctly apply the guidelines when Chad had primary residential responsibility? | Heidi argues the guidelines require a standard custodial-arrangement framework, not a custodial-to-noncustodial payment. | Chad contends the guideline framework was misapplied given primary residential responsibility. | The court concluded the district court failed to follow the guidelines; remand for recalculation under proper framework. |
| Is the marital estate distribution equitable and adequately explained? | Heidi claims substantial disparity without adequate explanation; alleges mischaracterization of Chad’s 401(k) and Heidi’s life policy. | Chad argues findings support the distribution and reflect Heidi’s financial mismanagement and dissipation. | The court affirmed property division in its entirety; majority held findings adequate for distribution; dissent argued for remand to better explain disparity. |
| Should the court award Chad his entire 401(k) to pay joint debts? | Heidi contends 401(k) division was unnecessary and misapplied. | Chad argues 401(k) was necessary to satisfy joint debts and reflect dissipation by Heidi. | The court affirmed Chad’s 401(k) transfer to cover joint debts; the majority found support in the record and the dissipation findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchholz v. Buchholz, 590 N.W.2d 215 (N. D. 1999) (necessary detailed findings required; recitation insufficient)
- Dalin v. Dalin, 545 N.W.2d 785 (N. D. 1996) (child support guidelines contemplate noncustodial paying custodial)
- Brakke v. Brakke, 525 N.W.2d 687 (N. D. 1994) (underlying basis for support obligations and deviations)
- Richter v. Houser, 598 N.W.2d 193 (N. D. 1999) (offsetting child support obligations in equal custody contexts)
- Holden v. Holden, 728 N.W.2d 312 (N. D. 2007) (long-term marriages and distribution expectations)