*1 213 ¶ Albrecht, party.” over a at 10. power regarding order juvenile MW. party may right waive the While court’s transferring order counts four and object voluntarily submit to the court’s court, therefore, five to the district is void. ¶ Albrecht, personal jurisdiction, at such, As juvenile we vacate the court’s “ ‘[ijssues involving subject juris matter order. Because this Court does not ren- diction cannot be waived and can be raised advisory der opinions, we do not address ” Trottier, sponte any sua at time.’ 2001 any by of the issues raised ¶ 177, 5, (quoting 635 N.W.2d 157 Ear appeal from the void transfer order. ¶ Garcia, 196, 7, nest v. 1999 ND Ude, 211, 24, See Saville v. 2009 ND 260). Further, en “[a]n N.W.2d order 31; Obregon, N.W.2d Bies v. proper jurisdic tered a court without (and 9, 558 N.W.2d 855 cases cited there- tion is void and can vacated.” be Wilson in). 179, ¶ 6, Koppy,

68. Ill parameters juvenile juvenile court order is vacat- jurisdiction court’s are set forth in ed. 27-20-03(1), § N.D.C.C. states in part: juvenile relevant “The court has ex- WALLE, GERALD W. VANDE original jurisdiction clusive following C.J., CROTHERS, DANIEL J. DALE V. proceedings, which governed by are SANDSTROM, and CAROL RONNING ch. a. Proceedings [N.D.C.C. 27-20]: KAPSNER, JJ., concur. which a alleged delinquent, child is to be ” unruly, Further, .... deprived; “ ‘[cjhild’ means an individual who is ... [ujnder age twenty years with re-

spect delinquent to a act committed while age under of eighteen years.” 27-20-02(4)(b). § N.D.C.C. Under 27-20-36(6), “when the child 2010 ND 130 age twenty years, attains the all orders BOECKEL, Darnell K. Plaintiff affecting the child then in force terminate Appellee and the child discharged from further obligation or control.” Section 27-20- 37(l)(b), N.D.C.C., provides that or- “[a]n BOECKEL, K. Defendant der of the court must set aside if: ... be Appellant. jurisdiction [t]he lacked over a neces- sary party subject or of the matter.” No. 20090302. Here, undisputed it is Supreme Court of North Dakota. years M.W. was 20 old the time the July

juvenile court entered its order transfer ring counts four and five of the amended court,

petition to the district and he was under 18 at the alleged time delin

quent years act. Once M.W. turned 20

old, juvenile jurisdiction court lacked under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20 to enter a valid

Rodney Bismarck, E. Pagel (argued), ND, plaintiff for and appellee. Lynn Boughey Bismarck, M. (argued), ND, for defendant appellant. KAPSNER, Justice. Jocelyn Boeckel appeals from an

amended judgment. divorce We affirm the district court’s valuation and distribu- tion marital estate and its attorney refusal to award to Jocelyn fees Boeckel. We reverse and remand the case findings regarding applica- further bility of rebuttable against awarding custody to the perpetra- tor of domestic abuse.

I. Jocelyn Darnell Boeckel

Boeckel were married in 1994 and lived on Lemmon, a farm near S.D. The together, aged have three children eight to fourteen at the time of trial. In April parties separated, and Darnell Boeckel filed for divorce. Boeckel Lemmon, and the children moved to while Darnell Boeckel continued to reside on the February farm. In custody investigator, who appointed rec- awarding physical custody ommended Boeckel, with Darnell Boeckel re- Barnes, had boyfriend, Chad August In cause rights.1 eeiving visitation killed in an parents were area. Jocelyn Boeckel’s found work the Williston Jocelyn Boeckel and automobile accident. subsequently Barnes married Boeckel and parents’ the heirs to her sister were and had a child December April estate. par- and the After Williston, Darnell moved to ties’ children 2007, Darnell Boeck- February a motion to amend the di- Boeckel filed entered into el Decree, Boeckel asked judgment. Darnell Entry Of Divorce vorce “Stipulation For provided: him Judgment,” which court to award With Partial the district *4 and to distribute their entry parties’ children stipulate to the hereby The divorce motion was and decree of marital estate. While the judgment of a visitation, herein, custody, court, issues of with before the district Darnell pending being support settled. and child in 2008. Boeckel’s mother died October jurisdiction over issues will retain Court the sole heir to his Darnell Boeckel was distribution, which and debt property mother’s estate. settled, and those matters have not been reappointed The district court hearing. in a further will be decided custody investigator, who advised the the issue of parties agreed to reserve primary custody to physical court to award litigation because property distribution Boeckel, thereby changing her Darnell parents’ estate re- over The district original recommendation. what, and it was unclear ongoing, mained in April court held a bench trial 2009. actually would inherit. any, property she findings the district court issued July judg- The district court entered divorce judg- amended of fact and an order for stipu- conformity parties’ with the ment The district court found the chil- ment. judgment physical awarded lation. could en- dren’s environment Williston parties’ of the children to emotional health danger physical their or Boeckel, receiving with Darnell Boeckel would be furthered and their best interests regard property rights. visitation With by residing with Darnell Boeckel. The distribution, judgment the divorce stated: physical custody court awarded of the marital es- equitable “The division Darnell Boeckel. The district court also be determined at tate and debts will parties’ divided the marital estate and re- date, jurisdic- reserves later and the Court attorney own fees. quired pay each purpose.” tion for that property The district court included Joce- af- six months approximately For lyn parents Boeckel inherited from her judgment, the entry ter the of the divorce estate, marital but not the Lemmon, near and Dar- parties both lived inherited from property Darnell Boeckel enjoyed significant visitation nell Boeckel appeals, his mother. Boeckel now informing first with the children. Without the district court erred award- arguing Boeckel, Jocelyn moved Boeckel, custody to Darnell Williston, ing physical N.D. in De- with the children to of the moved be- its distribution and valuation cember 2007. However, because the Legislature 14- Laws ch. dis- 1. The amended N.D.C.C. ch. during August prior the 2009 session. Effective made its decision under trict court 1, 2009, "custody” 14-09, and are now "visitation” opinion N.D.C.C. ch. version of responsibility” "primary called residential terminology. prior uses the “parenting time.” See 2009 N.D. Sess. estate, by failing marital guidance award her and to continue the edu- attorney fees. cation of the child. disposition

c. The parents provide food, II. child with clothing, care, medical or other remedial care rec- party Where a files a motion to ognized permitted under the laws of modify custody years less than two after care, this state in lieu of medical original establishing the date of the order other material needs. custody, the district modify court cannot length d. The of time the child has custody “unless the court finds the modifi- lived in a satisfactory stable environ- necessary cation is to serve the best inter- desirability ment and the maintaining est of the child and: continuity. persistent a. The and willful denial or permanence, unit, e. The family as a visitation;

interference with the existing proposed custodial home. b. present The child’s environment f. The moral fitness of parents. *5 may endanger physical the child’s or emotional impair health or the child’s g. physical The mental and health of emotional development; or parents. primary

e. The physical care of the home, school, h. The community and changed child has to parent the other record of the child. longer than six months.” i. preference The reasonable of the child, 14-09-06.6(5). § the court deems

N.D.C.C. the child to be The district found, intelligence, sufficient understanding, court “[a]s result of mov- Williston, experience and to ing express preference. parties’ stipulated visi- tation schedule was no longer workable.” j. Evidence of domestic violence ... as The district court also found “the chil- defined in section 14-07.1-01.... may dren’s environment Williston en- k. The interaction and interrelation- danger physical or emotional health” ship, potential or the for interaction and “[t]hey because have had numerous con- interrelationship, any of the child with flicts, physical reported by some as [the person in, present, who resides or custody investigator], with Chad [Barnes].” frequents parent the household of a and Jocelyn Boeckel does not appeal these may who significantly affect the child’s findings. best interests. The court shall consider The district court also found the person’s history of inflicting, or ten- best interest of the child factors favored inflict, dency harm, physical bodily Darnell Boeckel. At the time of the dis- assault, injury, physical the fear of matter, trict hearing court in this harm, bodily assault, injury, or on other 14-09-06.2(1) identified the following persons. affecting factors as the best interests of making l. allegations false not the child: faith, by made in good parent one love, affection, a. The and other emo- other, against the of harm to a child as tional existing ties parents between the defined in section 50-25.1-02.

and child. Any m. other factors considered b. capacity disposition particular court to be relevant to a child parents love, affection, give the child custody dispute. A. interest of the child the best applying

In (d), factors, court found factors dis In the district court’s (i) Boeckel, (e), (h), favored favored Darnell of factors it found cussion Boeckel, Boeckel, (b) repeatedly ref the district court (j) favored factors Jocelyn Boeckel erenced conflicts between (a), (c), (f), favored (g) factors husband, Barnes, as Chad and her new clearly it While did party. neither and the well as between Barnes con- so, apparently the district state (d), factor the district children. Under (k) party. neither factor to favor sidered Jocelyn has moved court stated: “Since custody court also noted The district numerous con there have been Williston Darnell Boeckel recommended investigator and the children. [Barnes] flicts between custody. physical be awarded the home because is now out of [Barnes] appeals, ar- Jocelyn Boeckel now Violence Pro Jocelyn obtained a Domestic clearly was errone- district court guing Currently, against Order [him]. tection child interest of the is not stable ous to find best the environment Williston (e), factor the dis satisfactory.” in or Under Darnell Boeckel based factors favored no again trict court noted Barnes was potential presence Barnes part upon Boeckel’s Willi- longer residing home. in her Williston home, “return to the ston but stated his court erred its the district is uncertain at this time.” dis home it (j) factor because did not application of (h), factor the district court stated cussing the rebuttable invoke home “has Boeckel’s Williston perpetrator of awarding *6 boys’ in turmoil because of the con been abuse. domestic flicts with and the Protection Or [Barnes] (k), factor der Under [him].” recently This Court ex district court stated the environment plained its review of a district court’s cus “has Jocelyn Boeckel’s Williston home Heinle, 2010 ND tody award Heinle of the domestic disrupted been because ¶5, 6, 777 N.W.2d 590: have been numerous con violence. There custody “A court’s award of district children.” flicts between and the [Barnes] and, ap fact on finding treated as a possibility The district court also noted not be reversed unless it is peal, will home, stating: to the returning of Barnes clearly erroneous under N.D.R.Civ.P. that wants to work “Jocelyn testified she 52(a).” ], Lindberg Lindberg[ If relationship with ev [Barnes]. on her 136, ¶ 4, (quoting 770 N.W.2d 252 erything goes right, would come [Barnes] Wessman, Wessman v. conclusion, back into the home.” ¶ 85). 12, 747 N.W.2d “Under the clear physi awarding court stated it was review, do ly erroneous standard of we custody cal to Darnell Boeckel “[b]ecause interfering Jocelyn’s or reassess the move to Williston reweigh not the evidence visitation, the conflicts be witnesses, with Darnell’s credibility and we will and the children and the [Barnes] tween retry custody case or substitute domestic violence [Barnes] recent between court’s initial judgment our for district ” Jocelyn.... custody merely because we decision might have reached a different result.” residing Because Barnes was not Lindberg, (quoting Jelsing trial, at 4 v. Pe home at the time of her Williston terson, argues the district court 157). in- clearly to find the best was erroneous that, terest of the child factors investigator favored Darnell on two different occa- in part upon poten- sions, Boeckel based Barnes’ called him lazy “[Barnes] fat and Rather, presence tial the home. Joce- him,” and started [choking] and Barnes lyn the district court chest, poked him in the leaving a red should have evaluated the best interest A mark. second child told social services factors under the circumstances at and, would smack him” “[Barnes] on trial, specifically time of residing Barnes occasion, one “poked him top on the of his However, outside the home. grabbed arm, him, lip, pulled his lifted him argument recognize fails to off ground and dropped him and threw likely importance relevance and of Barnes him ground.” investi- in the lives of the children. At the gator stated: “It great is of concern that trial, time of Boeckel and Barnes [Barnes] has been unable to control his recently remained married and had child temper with the children.... I do not see together. Jocelyn Boeckel testified she the behavior towards [parties’ chil- they desired reconcile with Barnes rising abuse; as dren] the level of child can work out their issues and Barnes com- very however it is inappropriate.” pleted anger management an class. With record also contains evi- regard to her relationship, and Barnes’ she dence of domestic violence between Joce- very testified: “I strongly believe in mar- lyn Boeckel and Barnes. According to the riage .... I go my And didn’t into mar- custody investigator’s report: riage with as a short thing. [Barnes] term I want to work on it if possible at all Saturday stated that on morn- because [her and Barnes’ child] deserves ing, 28, 2009, March she and [Barnes] parents.” have her upon Based arguing. were still going She was evidence, the district correctly found daughter take her somewhere and Barnes was relevant to the best interests stated [Barnes] she would take his because, of the children everything “[i]f daughter against body. his dead Joce- goes right, [Barnes] would come back into lyn reported baby that she had *7 the home.” the car seat and was attempt- [Barnes] Further,

[¶ the evidence regarding 12] ing get to the car away seat from her. supports Barnes the district court’s find- process, In the held his fore- [Barnes] ings. custody investigator’s 2009 re- against arms body.... her neck and port stated social services received multi- Jocelyn reported having one bruise on ple reports of suspected child abuse or her left thumb scratch on her neglect Boeckel’s Williston wrist. home beginning spring the of 2008. Jocelyn Boeckel testified she obtained a custody investigator reported the sec- restraining against order Barnes as a re- verbal, ond social report “alleged services’ incident, sult of this which was still in physical and emotional abuse of [par- the effect at time the of trial. In recommend-

ties’ custody children] [Barnes].” ing physical the district court award cus- investigator’s report included several in- tody Boeckel, custody in- the of alleged stances such According abuse. vestigator “major stated the factor” was custody investigator, one of the “physical altercations between [Barnes] parties’ children told her: “[Barnes] and recently and the children and of Jocelyn.” got fight he into a grabbed and [Barnes] his shirt up Thus, and held him until he could not evidence established a breathe.” The same child told strong possibility that Barnes would re- harm, injury, ac- physical bodily sexual home. Williston

turn force, that, by physical as- tivity compelled when also established The evidence home, sault, immi- the infliction of fear of in the or resided previously Barnes harm, injury, bodily sexual physical altercations nent physical numerous were there force, children, activity by physical or compelled him and the between self-defense, assault, committed in against violence domestic he committed or complaining family household upon this evi- on Jocelyn Barnes. Based clearly dence, was not members. the district court interests of the to find the best erroneous 14-07.1-01(2). § N.D.C.C. favored Darnell child factors “A wheth determination part upon presence poten- or based 14- presumption er the under Boeek- of Barnes presence tial 09-06.2(1)0) applicable finding is a home. el’s Williston fact, appeal will not be reversed on v. clearly erroneous.” Gietzen Ga unless B. bel, 153, ¶ 9, 552. 2006 ND 718 N.W.2d Jocelyn Boeckel of do addressing whether evidence When application in its court erred triggers presumption, violence mestic (j) interest of the child factor of the best specific make the district court “must by failing apply the rebuttable factors findings regarding the effect the detailed awarding custody to presumption against have on allegations of domestic violence Fac- of domestic violence. perpetrator Cox, presumption.” Cox (j) provides: tor ¶ 144, 17, (citing 613 N.W.2d 516 Holtz v. awarding custody granting rights or 1). 105, 27, Holtz, 1999 ND 595 N.W.2d visitation, court shall consider evi- findings court’s should be suf The district If the court dence of domestic violence. ficiently to allow this Court detailed that domestic vi- finds credible evidence P.A. the basis for its decision. understand occurred, and there exists olence has A.H.O., 194, 10, violence which one incident domestic bodily injury or in- resulted in serious The evidence established dangerous weapon volved the use of a vio Darnell Boeckel committed domestic pattern of domestic vio- there exists multiple Boeckel on proxi- time lence lence within a reasonable custody investigator’s 2006 occasions. The proceeding, mate to the this combination report that a states: creates a rebuttable *8 vi- parent perpetrated who has domestic occurred In November 2000 an incident joint may olence not be awarded sole Darnell Jocelyn reported in which custody presumption of a child. This fell to the kicked her the back and she only by clear con- may be overcome and feeling paralyzed reported floor. She that the best interests vincing evidence get up.... was unable to and require parent’s partic- of the child that one of the on the floor and asked was As ipation parent.... as a custodial she could con- get phone kids to the so subdivision, vio- used in “domestic this help come to her. neighbor tact a to de- lence” means domestic violence as arrived, Jocelyn was neighbor the When fined in section 14-07.1-01. neighbor The con- still on the floor. came that she was contacted and 14-09-06.2(1)0'). “Domestic firmed Jocelyn. Jocelyn home to assist violence” is defined as:

221 appeared pain; the floor and Boeckel stated she drove to Dar- was on lying nell parties’ parents children] of the was Boeckel’s farmstead after her [one Tyl- neighbor] got her she to [The with her. died because wanted “look at the get Darnell helped up.... enol her things my and mom had she made.” When differ- recounts this incident somewhat Boeckel if she asked Darnell could enter He her and ently. reported grabbing house, Jocelyn the Boeckel testified “he and hurt tail bone. she fell her doorway pushed shoved me out the all way my me the back to vehicle.” report 2006 investigator’s another of domestic vio- discusses incident regard (j), [¶ 19] With to factor the confron- April lence 2005 where verbal found: district court ‘When Darnell and tation the turned physical: between still were married and to- living reported Jocelyn [Darnell Boeckel] gether, perpetrated Darnell domestic vio- with pushed against him her chest and against Jocelyn. lence at She obtained put wouldn’t leave. He his arms around least two Protection Dar- Orders to attempted get her her leave nell. Darnell’s domestic violence against lay the She down on the floor home. years occurred several ago prior told her leave or he would and he (j) the divorce. favors [Factor ] out. took a chair and hit drag her She Jocelyn.” While the district court found it. grabbed him with He her ankle Darnell Boeckel committed domestic vio- pulled living her out of the room.... lence, it apply pre- did not the rebuttable

Jocelyn presented similar historical sumption against awarding custody to the summary; with however some addi- perpetrator of domestic violence. The dis- tions .... Her view is a more violent specific trict court did not make de- accounting Jocelyn reported of events. findings regarding applicability tailed the wanted her to leave the presumption though even it found home and when she refused she was Darnell vio- Boeckel committed domestic room, grabbed by across thrown Nor court make lence. did around, drug hair and and her foot was findings can from we discern twisted. factual basis for the court’s decision. See ¶ 14, Rothberg Rothberg, incident, April the cus- Following 2005 fact findings (“Although N.W.2d investigator’s tody report stated a clear should be stated afford under- home two of Boeckel left with decision, standing findings of the court’s stayed children Communi- adequate are can discern Court ty Against Violence and Abuse shelter. trial from them the factual for the basis staff of her photographs shelter took determination.”). court’s injuries. custody investigator report- photos, ed she looked at “which re- ex- findings sufficiently [¶ 20] Without following: eye, vealed a swollen mark court’s reason for plaining the district neck, back of to be across the believed applying the rebuttable *9 holding up from her from the front Darnell awarding custody perpetra- to the shirt, top of her bruise on of her foot with violence, we tor of domestic cannot ade- some abrasion and left skin shoulder burn example, its decision. For quately review a rug believed to be burn.” district court we cannot know whether the a Boeckel not suffer “seri- Boeckel testified about found did [¶ 18] “pat- and was no bodily injury” third of domestic violence that ous there incident within a of domestic violence reason- parties separated. occurred after the had tern 222 of marital equitable ed: division the to the “The proceeding,” proximate

able time at a estate and debts will be determined or wheth- 14-09-06.2(1)©, see N.D.C.C. date, jurisdic- the later and Court reserves Darnell court concluded er the district 2008, In purpose.” tion for that October the presumption Boeckel overcame the after Darnell Boeckel filed motion to vio- regarding domestic through evidence modify custody parties’ and distribute the home. Jocelyn Boeckel’s Williston lence in estate, marital his mother died. Darnell and the Therefore, reverse remand we heir to mother’s Boeckel was the sole his court with instructions case to the district estate. findings regard- detailed provide more the applicability the of ing (j) factor court the The district distributed [¶ 23] custody to against awarding the amended di- parties’ marital estate See, the of domestic violence. perpetrator includ- judgment. vorce district court Kasprowicz, e.g., Kasprowicz ed Boeckel inherited property ¶¶ 12-18, (reversing N.W.2d 921 estate, from in the marital but parents her award because remanding Boeckel property not Darnell inherited Fact, the Findings unclear from of “[i]t is from mother. The district court stat- his Judg- Law and for Conclusions of Order ed: the

ment district court what conclusion Obviously, mother] Boeckel’s [Darnell violence regarding domestic reached parties died after the were divorced. presumption”). Darnell is the sole heir her estate. may

Any Darnell inherit from property III. acquired property. his is after mother any estate or other asset [His mother’s] Jocelyn Boeckel the dis- ai’gues by parties after acquired debt trict in its distribution of the court erred part is not marital divorce parties’ estate the district marital because estate. property include Darnell court failed to mother, his from appeal, Jocelyn Boeckel inherited On dis- prop- erred in its valuation of by district court trict Darnell excluding court erred parents. her erty inherited from inheritance she from marital es- Boeckel’s stipulated

tate because Darnell Boeckel determining the district the contents court A. date, at a later marital estate After Darnell filed when court its con- the district determined for but before the district divorce tents, Darnell Boeckel had vested inter- judgment the divorce court entered est the inheritance. in an parents Boeckel’s died court accident. Boeckel and We hold automobile excluding parents’ the heirs to their did err sister were entry from the marital es parties stipulated inheritance estate. correctly but tate. excluded judgment, reserved the is The district divorce time. Darnell Boeckel’s inheritance from the property sue division a later will marital estate as matter of law stipulation stated: “The Court after jurisdiction over because his mother died property retain issues of distribution, “Assets accumulated after not been were divorced. debt have are settled, separation prior matters divorce and those will be decided but Lynnes estate.” hearing.” conformity in a with in the marital further included *10 ¶71, 14, 747 93 Lynnes, the stat- 2008 ND N.W.2d stipulation, judgment the divorce

223 added) (citing parties presented v. (emphasis Kautzman the Kautzman, 192, 10, 585 N.W.2d documentary district court with and testi 561). correctly district court also de- concerning monial evidence the value stipulate the did not termined to Jocelyn Jocelyn Boeckel’s inheritance. the of Darnell Boeckel’s inheri- inclusion a Boeckel submitted demonstrative exhibit stipula- marital estate. The tance the the listing money property she inherit juris- tion “The will retain stated: Court parents’ ed from her The parties estate. property diction over issues of and debt property also filed a listing debt under distribution, settled, have not been Jocelyn N.D.R.Ct. 8.3. Boeckel listed the will and those matters be decided $395,880.18, value of her inheritance at hearing.” Similarly, further the divorce while Darnell Boeckel its at listed value judgment equitable stated: “The division $598,229.96. be primary difference of the marital estate and debts will be tween the valuations of date, at a determined later Court Boeckel’s inheritance concerned whether jurisdiction purpose.” reserves for that specific Boeckel inherited the Thus, stipulation judg- neither the nor the amounts listed her demonstrative exhib ment claim support Jocelyn Boeekel’s that it, Darnell proposed, as Boeckel or wheth agreed proper- Darnell Boeckel to include amounts, er she inherited one-half those as ty after in the acquired the divorce marital proposed, Boeckel because she Rather, par- estate. both demonstrate the only inherited parents’ one-half of her es for district per- ties intended court to examination, tate. On cross equitable form later division date. acknowledged she inherited the Therefore, correctly the district court ex- in the amounts listed demonstrative exhib cluded Darnell Boeckel’s inheritance from it, several her proposed valuations the parties’ marital estate. were therefore one-half proper amount:

B. Q. example, 155, As an number the life estate], parents’ you insurance [from erred its valuation the $12,500. have estate, marital specifically the property parents’ she inherited from her A. Yes. estate. “In proceedings, divorce dis Q. 5 of de- And under attachment [the trict court’s valuation of the marital estate it exhibit] monstrative shows the basic is a of fact will finding that reversed be $50,000 benefit and then check clearly unless it is erroneous.” Isaacson $25,000. payable you was made for Isaacson, 18, 16, 777 N.W.2d Yes, Okay. [my A. proposed valuations] property 886. “Marital valuations within wrong. were range clearly the evidence are not Wald, erroneous.” Wald v. 556 N.W.2d one, Q. be example, So should (N.D.1996) (citing 295 Hendrickson v. $25,000. Hendrickson, (N.D. 219 being changed A. allWith the numbers 1996)). “Ultimately, the district court is in your back and forth from office to mine better position judge than this Court my side, on we didn’t know which credibility and observe the demeanor I things guess missed some on what —I property witnesses to determine you had what we had. changed versus Kostelecky, values.” Kostelecky ¶ 9, N.W.2d *11 court torney fees. The district stated: it is with de- [the if associated Q. So to exhibit], party responsible pay the amount “Each will be that is monstrative their attorney own fees out of indi- received? you attorney fees will not assets. Those vidual agree I’ll to. the amount A. That is Jocelyn included as a marital debt.” be evidence, the district upon Based testified Boeckel’s lack of Boeckel Darnell Jocelyn inheritance Boeckel’s court valued cooperation disputes over visitation caused $460,258.72. attorney to incur fees and her substantial However, Jocelyn Boeckel claims 27] [¶ fees, attorney he “since he caused the clearly er- court’s valuation is the district responsible paying be them.” should the evidence establishes roneous because attorney Jocelyn previous Boeckel’s Jocelyn actually inherit far less. she will of her portion testified substantial fees against testified claims were filed Boeckel disputes related to between were visitation minors parents’ estate on behalf two her Boeckel un- parties, acted injured were in the same automobile who Thus, reasonably settling disputes. Jocelyn parents. accident that killed her the district Jocelyn Boeckel claims court stated the minors have medical Boeckel have Darnell Boeckel to should ordered $800,000, as a exceeding as well Med- bills attorney pay her fees. to against lien estate. Due icaid action, a divorce dis estate, Jocelyn parents’ her claims may attorney court trict award fees “as what, it if any, testified unclear Boeckel is may necessary.” be 14-05-23. actually she would inherit: property A district court’s decision whether to Q. you at this don’t know point [S]o attorney is within the award fees much, anything, you going are how not be court’s discretion and will reversed out get anything [your parents’] es- an abuse of discretion. Eberle v. absent tate, under these circumstances? Eberle, 107, ¶ 39, 766 N.W.2d Right. A. “A its 477. district court abuses discretion holdWe the district court’s find- misinterprets misapplies if it or the law.” Jocelyn that would inherit ing Boeckel Christian, Christian v. $460,258.72 not clearly erroneous be- present 819. range cause its valuation was within the establishing no evidence how dis ed Wald, the evidence. See 556 N.W.2d at misapplied trict court misinterpreted Also, testi- 295. while Boeckel’s by attorney the law to award her refusing mony possibility establishes the her affirm the district court’s deci fees. We by parents’ estate would be reduced sion. claims, outstanding the district was credibility position judge in a better V. testimony and deter- We affirm the district court’s property Kostelecky, mine values. of the valuation distribution 120, 9, 714 affirm N.W.2d We marital estate refusal and its award the district court’s valuation and distribu- attorney fees Boeckel. We re-

tion of the marital estate. case for verse and remand the further

findings regarding applicability IV. against awarding rebuttable of domestic perpetrator dis- awarding trict court erred at- abuse. *12 WALLE,

[¶ 32] GERALD W. VANDE C.J., MARING, MARY MUEHLEN CROTHERS, JJ., concur. DANIEL J. SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring in the result. I believe the reasonable inter-

pretation findings court’s that there but it was domestic violence did

not rise to level of I presumption. objection no to sending

have this back for findings the district court to make its ex- provided consistently apply we plicit, future. standard DALE V. SANDSTROM

2010 ND 137 Dakota, STATE North Plaintiff Appellee POITRA, Joshua John Defendant Appellant. No. 20090339. Supreme of North Dakota. Court

July