941 N.W.2d 556
N.D.2020Background
- Wendy and Kevin Willprecht married in 1999, had four minor children, and farmed extensively on family-owned and acquired farmland; Kevin is a self‑employed farmer and sole owner of the family farm corporation.
- Wendy sued for divorce in 2018; the parties stipulated Wendy would have primary residential responsibility for the children and the court adopted that stipulation.
- After a bench trial the district court awarded Wendy a net property award of $2,076,302 (including a $750,000 equalization payment payable over 15 years) and Kevin $3,562,998; it denied spousal support, ordered each party to pay their own attorney’s fees, and set Kevin’s monthly child support at $3,092.
- Kevin moved to dismiss Wendy’s appeal, arguing she waived appeal rights by accepting substantial benefits of the judgment; the Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the property division as not clearly erroneous but reversed and remanded the child support, spousal support, and attorney‑fees rulings for further findings or recalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to dismiss appeal for waiver | Wendy did not waive appeal; she seeks larger property share and spousal support | Kevin argued Wendy accepted benefits (deeds, payments) and waived appeal | Denied; movant must clearly show waiver and no such showing here |
| Valuation date(s) for marital property | Court must use agreed valuation date for all property; statute ambiguous | Court may apply different dates where parties agreed on some values and not others | Court may apply agreed dates where made and statutory default (service or separation) for other items; affirmed valuation approach |
| Inclusion/value of 2018 crop | 2018 crop should be included based on crop insurance revenue protection | 2018 crop did not exist at separation; statute default date controls | 2018 crop excluded because it did not exist as of separation; affirmed |
| Equity of property division / equalization timing | Disparity unexplained; delay of equalization payment and 15‑yr schedule improper | Court considered gifts, discounted purchases, ‘‘double‑counted’’ crop assets, and farm viability; installment schedule within discretion | Division not clearly erroneous; explanation adequate; equalization schedule not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Child support—self‑employment income averaging | Use five‑year average for fluctuating farm income per guidelines | Court used three‑year average due to recent agricultural conditions | Court erred: record supported five‑year average or required findings explaining three‑year choice; remand for recalculation |
| Child support—step‑down as children reach majority | Support must step down as each child ages out; guidelines require step‑down unless justified | Court refused step‑downs to substitute for spousal support balancing | Court erred to prohibit step‑down; ordered recalculation including step‑down provisions |
| Spousal support tied to child support calculation | Wendy needs support; court improperly tied denial to child support decision | Court denied spousal support relying on child support structure and payments to equalize burdens | Reversed and remanded because court impermissibly used child support to substitute for spousal support; needs independent Ruff‑Fischer analysis |
| Attorney's fees | Request for fees supported by need and Kevin’s ability to pay; court gave no explanation | Court denied and simply ordered each pay own fees | Remanded: court must explain reasoning and apply statutory factors before denying fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Tuhy v. Tuhy, 907 N.W.2d 351 (N.D. 2018) (party who moves to dismiss appeal bears burden to clearly show waiver by accepting benefits)
- Lee v. Lee, 927 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 2019) (standard for reversing valuation findings—clearly erroneous; Ruff‑Fischer guideline application)
- Swanson v. Swanson, 921 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 2019) (treatment of separate property origin and farm/business preservation in equitable distribution)
- Schultz v. Schultz, 920 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 2018) (court discretion on equalization payment timing and interest)
- Minyard v. Lindseth, 930 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 2019) (standards of review for child support determinations)
- Thompson v. Johnson, 912 N.W.2d 315 (N.D. 2018) (child support guidelines govern and cannot be arbitrarily ignored)
- Brew v. Brew, 903 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 2017) (apply guidelines with common sense and consider circumstances)
- Stock v. Stock, 873 N.W.2d 38 (N.D. 2016) (child support is for care of minors; spousal support is for equalizing post‑divorce burdens—court cannot substitute one for the other)
- Deyle v. Deyle, 825 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 2012) (court must explain denial of attorney’s fees and consider need and ability to pay)
- Heinle v. Heinle, 777 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 2010) (factors for awarding attorney’s fees in divorce under statutory discretion)