Willprecht v. Willprecht
2021 ND 17
N.D.2021Background
- Wendy and Kevin Willprecht married in 1999 and have four children; Wendy filed for divorce in 2018 and trial occurred in March 2019.
- The district court initially denied spousal support, awarded Wendy roughly $2.08M (including a $750,000 equalization payment to be paid by Kevin over 15 years), and set child support without step-downs.
- On appeal this Court affirmed the property division but remanded because the district court erred by not including step-downs in child support and because spousal support needed reconsideration in light of adjusted child support obligations (Willprecht v. Willprecht, 2020 ND 77).
- On remand the district court amended its judgment: it added step-down child support schedules and awarded rehabilitative spousal support totaling $165,475 (specified monthly amounts that increase when child-support step-downs occur), acknowledging Kevin might need to tap equity to pay.
- Kevin appealed the amended judgment, arguing the court (1) failed to reapply the Ruff-Fischer factors on remand, (2) did not analyze Wendy’s actual need (living expenses), and (3) awarded spousal support exceeding his ability to pay.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded the spousal support award for further proceedings because the amended order failed to provide a discernible basis for Wendy’s need and did not show how Kevin could meet all obligations without depleting assets or incurring debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court was required to reapply the Ruff‑Fischer guidelines on remand | Wendy: prior Ruff‑Fischer analysis could be incorporated; no full reanalysis required | Kevin: court erred by failing to reconsider Ruff‑Fischer after altering child support | Court: incorporation of prior Ruff‑Fischer analysis was not clearly erroneous given mandate and affirmed property division; full mechanical reanalysis not required |
| Whether the court adequately considered Wendy’s need for spousal support | Wendy: her need was sufficiently addressed by prior findings and property award | Kevin: amended order failed to analyze Wendy’s monthly living expenses and need | Court: remand required because amended order lacked a discernible explanation of Wendy’s need for spousal support |
| Whether the spousal award exceeded Kevin’s ability to pay | Wendy: Kevin can pay (pointed to prior interim payments) | Kevin: combined obligations (child support, equalization payments, spousal support) exceed his net income | Court: remand required—record shows obligations likely exceed income and court provided no arithmetic showing feasibility; award may be unrealistic |
| Whether the district court could revisit property distribution when recalculating spousal support | Wendy: property distribution was affirmed on appeal and could not be reallocated | Kevin: spousal support and property division are intertwined and must be considered together | Court: property allocation was affirmed and could not be reallocated on remand, but prior property findings may be considered when deciding spousal support; but further explanation is required on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Willprecht v. Willprecht, 2020 ND 77, 941 N.W.2d 556 (remanding spousal support issue and requiring step‑down child support)
- Overland v. Overland, 2008 ND 6, 744 N.W.2d 67 (district court must consider Ruff‑Fischer guidelines for spousal support)
- Lindberg v. Lindberg, 2009 ND 136, 770 N.W.2d 252 (remand required when basis for spousal support award is not discernible)
- Berg v. Berg, 2018 ND 79, 908 N.W.2d 705 (trial court need not perform precise arithmetic but should describe financial situations to explain spousal support rationale)
- Weir v. Weir, 374 N.W.2d 858 (N.D. 1985) (reversed unrealistic spousal award where obligor’s obligations exceeded net income)
- Hagel v. Hagel, 2006 ND 181, 721 N.W.2d 1 (disfavored requiring recipient to deplete property awarded to justify spousal support)
- Marschner v. Marschner, 2001 ND 4, 621 N.W.2d 339 (property division and spousal support intertwined; court may reconsider on remand in some circumstances)
- Bakes v. Bakes, 532 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 1995) (spousal support not limited to prevention of destitution; considers pre‑divorce standard of living)