Willprecht v. Willprecht, 954 N.W.2d 707

Wendy and Kevin Willprecht married in 1999 and have four children (three minors). Wendy filed for divorce in 2018; trial occurred in March 2019.
The district court’s original judgment denied spousal support, divided marital property, and ordered Wendy a $750,000 equalization payment payable by Kevin over 15 years (annual payments with 3% interest).
On appeal this Court affirmed the property division but remanded for a child-support step-down and to reconsider spousal support because the original spousal analysis was tied to child-support calculations. Willprecht v. Willprecht, 2020 ND 77, 941 N.W.2d 556.
On remand the district court amended the judgment: it added a child-support step-down schedule and awarded rehabilitative spousal support to Wendy ($1,030/month June–Sept 2020; $1,735/month Oct 2020–June 2028), for a total spousal-support obligation of $165,475.
Kevin appealed, arguing the court (1) failed to reapply the Ruff–Fischer factors on remand, (2) did not adequately analyze Wendy’s need, and (3) awarded spousal support beyond his ability to pay.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded only the spousal-support award for further proceedings, holding the court could incorporate its prior Ruff–Fischer analysis but failed to provide a discernible basis for Wendy’s need and did not show Kevin could meet the award from current income without tapping equity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court was required on remand to re‑analyze the Ruff–Fischer factors	Wendy: prior Ruff–Fischer analysis remained valid and could be incorporated	Kevin: remand required a fresh Ruff–Fischer analysis tied to revised child‑support scheme	Held: Not clearly erroneous to incorporate the earlier Ruff–Fischer analysis given the appellate mandate and that property division was affirmed; full re‑analysis not required on remand
Whether the court sufficiently considered Wendy’s need for spousal support	Wendy: she made a compelling showing of need and entitlement to rehabilitative support	Kevin: the amended order lacks findings showing Wendy’s living expenses or specific need	Held: Reversed — the amended order did not provide a discernible basis for Wendy’s need; remand required for findings on need
Whether the spousal‑support award exceeded Kevin’s ability to pay	Wendy: Kevin has the ability to pay (pointing to prior interim payments)	Kevin: after taxes, child support, and equalization payments, the award creates monthly/annual deficits	Held: Reversed — record lacks demonstration Kevin can meet the award from income without selling assets or incurring debt; court acknowledged he may need to tap equity; remand required to determine ability to pay

Willprecht v. Willprecht, 2020 ND 77, 941 N.W.2d 556 (remanding child‑support step‑down and spousal‑support reconsideration)
Overland v. Overland, 2008 ND 6, 744 N.W.2d 67 (trial court must consider Ruff–Fischer guidelines for spousal support)
Schmuck v. Schmuck, 2016 ND 87, 882 N.W.2d 918 (spousal‑support review is clearly erroneous standard)
Berg v. Berg, 2018 ND 79, 908 N.W.2d 705 (district court should describe parties’ financial situations to explain spousal‑support rationale)
Lindberg v. Lindberg, 2009 ND 136, 770 N.W.2d 252 (remand required when basis for spousal‑support decision is not discernible)
Weir v. Weir, 374 N.W.2d 858 (N.D. 1985) (spousal award reversed where obligor could not meet payments without deficit)
Hagel v. Hagel, 2006 ND 181, 721 N.W.2d 1 (a spouse need not deplete property award to justify spousal support)
Marschner v. Marschner, 2001 ND 4, 621 N.W.2d 339 (property division and spousal support are intertwined; preservation of farm cannot override other factors)