*1 Therefore, judgment of the district
court is affirmed. PAULSON,
VOGEL, PEDERSON and
SAND, JJ., concur. HAUGEBERG,
Betty Ann Plaintiff Appellee, HAUGEBERG, Herman Appellant.
Defendant and
Civ. No. 9358.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Oct.
658 degree years three af-
Bachelor
Science
time,
marriage. During this
he
ter their
worked 41
week MDU. After
hours
for
he
graduation
employed by
was
Interna-
basically
Harvester
salesman.
tional
as a
traveling
He was a
salesman for Interna-
Stanley
tional Harvester out of Minot and
until 1963 when he went to work for O.K.
City,
Implement Company at Watford
At the time that he started
North Dakota.
1963,
Implement
to work for O.K.
in
bought
shares of
Imple-
stock
O.K.
represented
ment which
about 25% of the
outstanding
corporation.
stock
He
$25,000
gave
promissory
a
for
gradually paid
stock. This note was
off out
company
of bonuses he earned with the
payment being
with the final
made in 1974.
corpora-
He
all of the stock back to the
sold
1976,
January
tion in
about three months
was commenced.
before the divorce action
stock,
for his
Arvid received a
In return
promissory
January
note due
at
together
with interest accrued
8%
stock,
While he owned
per annum.
and held the
was on the board of directors
Jestrab, Williston,
Herman
and
Bjella &
although
pri-
president,
of vice
office
Gierke, III,
plaintiff
City,
Watford
for
F.
He is
mary duty was that of
salesman.
by Mr. Gierke.
appellee; argued
as a
currently working
Implement
for O.K.
Berkom, Minot, for defendant
Van
Ella
problem
has had a
with
salesman. Arvid
appellant.
and was in intensive
high
pressure
blood
in 1974 for a heart
care units three times
ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.
prob-
alcohol
He also has had an
condition.
at
which he has received treatment
lem for
Haugeberg,
H.
this case Arvid
at
Heartview in Mandan and at A.T.U.
St.
action for divorce institut-
in an
defendant
Minot. He now be-
Josephs Hospital
from
Haugeberg, appealed
A.
by Betty
ed
problem
under control.
lieves he has
delineating the
judgment
parts
those
division, awarding
child
high
has a
old and
Betty is
the defendant to
alimony,
ordering
out-
employed
was
education. She
school
attorney fees.
plaintiff’s
for the
going
while Arvid was
their home
side of
off,
periods,
short
school, taking time
Minot, North
married in
parties were
children.
did not
of their
She
for the birth
12,
There have
Dakota,
February
1956.
on
they
from 1959 until
work outside the home
marriage,
of this
born
four children
mov-
City in 1963. Since
moved to Watford
Haugeberg, born
Lynn
namely: Thomas
worked as a
City, she has
ing to Watford
1956;
Haugeberg,
30,
Lou
Carrie
August
bookkeeper
part
as a
time
babysitter and
Jeffrey
Haugeberg,
Lee
14,1958;
July
born
currently employed as a book-
1960;
and she
Lory
Mitchael
23,
born June
city.
firms in the
keeper for two
23, 1961.
September
Haugeberg, born
divorce was commenced
The action for
Arvid,
time of
of the summons and com-
Betty by service
College.
attending Minot State
was
April
on Arvid on
college
plaint
with a
graduated
He
a motion for an order
show
(N.D.1977);
also made
N.W.2d 400
Larson,
Larson v.
grant
why the court should not
cause
Our scope of
restraining
requiring
order
her
review
temporary
appeal
on
of these findings is limited
family
pro-
52(a),
to leave the
home and
N.D.R.Civ.P.,
husband
Rule
and thus we
will
custody, support,
and visita-
not set aside those
viding
findings
they
unless
are
restraining
pur-
clearly
A
order was entered
erroneous. A finding
tion.
of fact is
*3
clearly
when,
stipulation
erroneous
parties May
to
although
suant
there is
some
support it,
evidence to
The action
of 1976.
was tried in
Fifth
the reviewing
court on the entire
August
District at
evidence is left
City
Judicial
Watford
on
with the
definite and firm conviction
Under the
that a
judgment
1976.
dated Feb-
mistake
has been made.
1,1977:
Kostelecky v.
ruary
Kostelecky,
supra;
Rambel,
v.
Rambel
and such
Bohnenkamp, 253
Bohnenkamp v.
g.
ion,
E.
“In making
stated:
a determination in
v. John-
(N.D.1977);
Johnson
N.W.2d
this case the Court
bound
the factors
Fischer, 139
son, supra; Fischer v.
N.W.2d
Fischer,
set forth in Fischer
these
I
I have reviewed
factors and
arriving
have
them in
considered
Likewise,
stemming
attorney’s fees
determination.”
divorce are to be award
from an action for
of the trial court.
ed in
discretion
We must review the trial court’s decision
decision as to whether or not
trial court’s
light
guidelines
also in
of the Fischer
attorney’s fees will be awarded will not be
clearly
determine whether
it is
erroneous
appeal
appeal
unless the
interfered with on
and,
erroneous,
clearly
if found to be
that the
ing party affirmatively establishes
respects
what
it
so.
trial court has abused its discretion. Boh
*4
findings
in its
fact
supra;
enkamp
Bohnenkamp,
Hoster
paragraph
stated at
XXVI that
the finan-
Hoster,
(N.D.1974);
Note 29,197.85 Equity in residence personal goods, and other furniture Household 10,000.00 insurable value in residence 1,500.00 furnishings possession of defendant Furniture 2,000.00 father possession defendant’s belonging to defendant Cash 341.47 possession plaintiff’s Cash 12,828.04 sharing Profit $80,867.36 LIABILITIES: 1,000.00 $ Bank International
First 562.64 Appliance Bob’s 225.00 Oil Standard 17.30 MDU 1,000.00 Hospital and Miscellaneous Fargo Minot 2,804.94 $ $78,062.42 NET conflicting ignore instance and the value of the Although proper- values are ascribed ty upon of Arvid which there is no testimo- personal property by Betty, retained value, ny of may proceed to a determi- $10,000; varying between nation of those issues. although the value of certain tak- by Arvid has not en from the household As a result of the trial court’s division of determined; that, we think for the then, the received the determining the issues in this purpose of following property with the given values in the one figure figures: we use the lower round if ARVID BETTY 2,000.00 $ Cash $29,197.00
Home 12,828.00 Sharing Profit 341.00 Cash 1,500.00 Property Personal 5.000.00 Personal $16,328.00 $34,538.00 2.804.00 Assumed Liabilities Less $13,524.00 above, following: also addition to the received 7,800.00 ($300 per months) Alimony month for 26 $ Promissory note 25,000.00 (with per annum) interest at Implement 8% from OK ($150 per month month 300.00 Child child) for each minor 1,750.00 Attorney fees opin- in memorandum but be suspicious
The trial its of this transaction. The ion, amount of alimony *5 stated that the total fact that gave Mr. Knutson Haugeberg a $25,000 $7,800 plus the the note. The promissory note in payable January, 1979, alimony month for 26 months ends adds my a fuel to doubts that this $300 was a note promissory month the comes due. the bonafide transaction. ... I find Thus, $25,000 the that Betty Haugeberg when receives note this sold stock because of alimony the January ensuing all is to cease. in divorce.” “[wjhether that The court went on to state In a later in paragraph the memorandum division, call it or a you opinion, the trial court stated: money is entitled of over she to this amount “I approach this division of property, above the other awarded her. etc. that I must make with the thought $25,000 her protects The interest.” $25,000 stand, must sale but that $25,000 $7,800, note, Adding the Haugeberg Mrs. be protected must $1,750 attorney prop- to the above fees some extent because action taken $69,088 erty figures, gives Betty by dispose her husband to of his stock.” support, a plus month in child as com- The second transaction specifically dis- $13,524 pared to for Arvid. cussed in the fact findings of and memoran- findings in of fact and its opinion delivery dum involved a by Arvid of emphasized the earn- opinion, memorandum $6,756 check to a Van Maloney. Mrs. On ability of Arvid two transactions in April 8, Arvid wrote a check on his account Arvid The first of which was involved. in Northwestern Federal Savings and sale of the these transactions was the O.K. Williston, Loan Association of North Dako- $25,000 just Implement stock ta, and delivered it Maloney to Mrs. in June to the of the divorce prior commencement subsequently deposited 1976. She this opinion, In action. its memorandum check in the Bank Midland National of Bill- trial court stated: ings, Montana, to the credit of a Mr. or Mrs. just passing “More comment A. Maloney. than William Arvid testified that $25,000 $1,300, be made about the sale for owed the Maloneys should and that $5,400 July Mr. of 1976 Haugeberg’s January, of stock he received cash in help obligation. to Mr. One cannot of During Knutson. settlement In this substantially property. all of the served on Arvid were time, interrogatories $13,500 money. case, of about this sum Arvid received not mention and he did personal property par- out of the worth opinion, the trial memorandum In the roughly total net valued at ties’ mat- to the above stated, reference addition, In of the award ter: part profit of a represents to Arvid Haugeberg ‘lied’ in say not “I would sharing plan which he cannot receive until the, interrogatories . . . answers employment he terminates his current evasive and he was find that but I do Also, percentage retires. lawyer wife’s have informed should of his that he can receive on termination savings money taken out about directly varies with the num- employment, in Williston.” bank years company. he remains with the ber opinion, the memorandum on in Further company to remain with the He would have court added: before he could receive the entire to a Mrs. money this delivery of “This profit sharing amount of the benefits of the definitely an evasive Maloney was Van plan. In this received most of of his mari- because by Haugeberg tactic property. practical purposes, For all troubles.” tal potential is left with is his about all Arvid earning capacity subject obligation alimony, support, attorney AND ALIMONY PROPERTY DIVISION fees. record reviewing entire After there Secondly, foregoing in the cases guidelines, case, the Fischer this unequal for the distributions were reasons involving a divi cases divorce many other apply in this case. which do an award property and sion of court, we come to the firm decided Agrest, the wife received the home- made mistake has been that a conviction property was divided stead and the other award of division and and that Agrest had evenly. The wife built *6 in this case the trial alimony by separately from her profits home from regard due and With clearly erroneous. addition, In owned business. divorce opinion of respect for the grounds cruelty on of extreme granted was division of the equitable that an conclude sup- the wife had intemperance and and 14- required Section property as parties’ during times ported the husband N.D.C.C., made. 05-24, has not been Furthermore, marriage. alimony no was awarded. course, requirement is, no There only In there was a difference of a Dahl equal in order to be property division that a thousand dollars in the amounts award- few Grant, 226 N.W.2d v. equitable. Grant of the ed. This difference was result past in the has (N.D.1975). This court taking into consideration the trial court which were many property divisions upheld inher- property parties separately which the Fine, v. equal. Fine during marriage. their ited Grant, Fischer supra; (N.D.1976); Grant Dahl, 97 N.W.2d Fischer, Dahl v. supra; Fischer, personal In the court divided the Agrest, 75 N.D. (N.D.1959); Agrest equally gave and the husband 440 cases, (1947). Those acres, acres of land and the wife 400 includ- however, distinguished from this all be can The husband claimed ing the homestead. case. his land was worth about less than given parties the land to his wife. The all, parties both in all those cases First of years married for 30 and that case had been part of received a substantial granted on the the wife was the divorce equal, were not The divisions to be divided. get grounds cruelty. of extreme cases did one in none of those but Grant, prop- was In the husband awarded there was testimony by Oscar Knutson and $227,210, and the wife was erty worth Arvid that there may not abe bonus in $183,263. worth addi- In awarded
tion, alimony awarded a the wife was $350 high Betty is school graduate and has until This division was the month she died. worked outside of the home at times during being the result of Mr. Grant sole bread- marriage. She is currently employed as and, importantly, winner more because a bookkeeper for two firms in Watford City parties’ property given much of the was gross with salary a month. parents. the Grants Arvid, therefore, clearly greater has the Fine, greater received the the husband earning ability, which not only means parties’ share of the in that he he will more able to support himself in given previously separately owned future, but also earnings that his have mar- property back. This was the second mainly responsible for the accumula- marriage riage parties and this both tion of parties’ property during the eight years. lasted about marriage. into by taking court allowed this We think the difference basically acquisi- earning capac- the time consideration ity justifies requiring tion of the and the fact that Mr. Arvid to property, support and child Fine had a diminution in his assets suffered should be taken into marriage during the first three of the consideration in determining the property division, in the sum of but we do not justi- believe that it awarding fies almost all of the real and ease, present In this factors which are personal property to Betty. not, award of light do requirement payments, The next factor to be considered is the unequal justify property. such an division of duration of the and the conduct of by applying This can best be seen the Fisch- during each the marriage. The Hauge- guidelines er the facts of this ease. bergs were married in 1956 and thus were married for about twenty years before the all, considering ages First of Arvid Betty divorce. testified that had respective being parties, 39 at good been a wife during and mother trial, time of the there is not Arvid, however, time. good was not such a ages justify sufficient variance their husband and father. The evidence shows different treatment. Arvid, years, over the drank to excess earning The next factor consider is the physically Betty. appar- abused While parties. abilities of the Arvid has a Bache- ently alcohol, under influence of lor of in math degree Science and science *7 disrupted family home by ejecting College from Minot State has two family oldest children from the home employed being gradu- as a since salesman they coming while were of to the aid their ated in records show income 1959. The his mother. must We conclude that from this for the last to be as follows: three could easily trial court have concluded Salary Year Bonus Total parties if one of the was to bear a 13,750 12,000 25,750 1973 $ $ $ greater burden than the other from the 12,600 27,000 14,400 Arvid, separation, should be 14,400 17,350 31,750 during of guilty one misconduct the mar- addition, In records show that riage. $2,800, received a bonus in of however, say, This is not to that because $7,650, $8,575. was and in 1972 There misconduct, be deprived Mr. Arvid should testimony Oscar Knutson by also all drinking basically physical assets of the controlling because Arvid his was employee. Finally, family. present many he was a conduct was more valuable Such essities of each. This can be shown by our court where best decided of the cases property equal division of nearly party’s necessary living more each list of ex- approved. was penses as and received in offered evidence trial. at the parties’ is the sta- consideration Another nec- circumstances and in life and the tion ARVID
BETTY tax, Rent payment, 160.00 House $ Gas/eleetricity, 175.00 $ Maintenance 60.00 water 70.00 MDU 20.00 Telephone Telephone 25.00 Clothing 15.00 85.00 Water Laundry 400.00 22.50 Groceries Clothing 150.00 Food 250.00 25.00 Church 75.00 School ' "<r Transportation 60.00 Kid’s Allowance 75.00 Drugs/medical . 75.00 Miscellaneous 25.00 10.00 P. P. Insurance 50.00 Dental & Medical 20.00 Transportation 50.00 Life Insurance Ins., Main.) (Lie., Payment 150.00 & Gas Car $1,235.001 $812.502 trial, Betty had two From this we At the time of the conclude that Arvid’s her, Mitchael, living good with health is not as as Betty’s, minor children and that it Jeffrey, age along may depend greatly upon with age ability to con- drinking living problem. 18 but at home and trol who was Carrie course, Arvid, of had high school. going Their financial circumstances as shown living with him. Much of these no children time, property owned at the its value issues of expenses go to the time, at that and its producing income ca- support. pacity, any, if is another factor. This has physical condition of the been discussed and set out earlier in this The health and opinion. The in the Fischer net value of the was parties is another factor drinking prob- roughly The income producing Arvid has had a ca- guidelines. pacity really treatment. of their was which he has received limited lem for a drink for to the 8% interest on the testified that he had not had He Implement. trial. He also has O.K. prior months six undergone surgery, high pressure, blood has When this accumulated units for a in intensive care and has been also a factor to be considered. in its The trial court find- heart condition. the parties’ property all was accumulated XVI, paragraph stated of fact during marriage. the course of their con- good physical to be in appeared essentially were without funds at hearing. time of the divorce dition at the par- the time of their and neither ty any personal condition with received or real good physical is in being during marriage by gift condition the course of her a stomach trouble *8 no medicine. inheritance. for which she takes majority, which issue was not briefed or ar- this amount includes the 1. Arvid contends that gued, already living expenses amount who is 18 but do not think listed of Carrie figure living this for two children. He contends that excessive home. by $165. be reduced Without should therefore responsibility determining A, erroneously or not figure whether In exhibit list- automatically terminates at being a child $894.50. ed as guideline requires final Fischer con- check. This must The though balanced any other material matter. sideration of physical with Arvid’s health and condition certainly court here could consider The trial which has very problem much of a “suspicious” to as the what it referred stock past him in the and may continue to be in transaction, delivery and the “evasive” the future. Maloneys discussed earlier. the check Finally, Betty’s station in life can be relevant here is fact that Arvid Also maintained and her necessities met by her $1,500 pur- on his clothes for his own spent income, current supplemented by alimony prior within two months to the di- poses and child support payments. If conditions hearing. vorce change, party may either seek a modifica- Taking guide- into consideration all the judgment tion of respecting alimony and above, there are although lines discussed child support pursuant to Sections 14-05-24 allowing alimony sup- reasons for and child 14-05-25, N.D.C.C. port, inequitable division of Therefore, cannot be sustained. The was all we are left awith definite and during accumulated the course of the mar- firm conviction that a mistake has been Dahl, Grant, riage in this unlike and made in this case. We think that this mis- Agrest, Betty Fine. Unlike in this case did take by ordering can best corrected acquire property basically out of promissory note from O.K. Im- earnings. her own She did contribute sub- plement equally be divided between the earnings, her Ar- stantially by outside but parties. Arvid Betty should each be major clearly vid was breadwinner. promissory awarded note along with their share of the accrued inter- Betty’s during favor is Arvid’s conduct this, By doing est. marriage, “suspicious” and his stock delivery transaction and his “evasive” of will be as follows: BETTY ARVID $29,197.00 $12,828.00 Sharing
Home Profit 12,500.00 12,500.00 Promissory Promissory Note Note 5,000.00 1,500.00 Property Property Personal Personal 341.00 Cash 2.000.00 Cash $47,038.00 $28,828.00 Assumed 2.804.00
Less Liabilities $26,024.00 greater Because of earning Arvid’s poten- promissory plus one-half of the ac- tial, the alimony payment by ordered part crued interest on note to month will be continued appropriate. (2) invest or use as he deems until Betty Arvid’s death or until remarries. payment The on The support payments should be con- possible continuous basis should make it tinued as ordered as we her to her present maintain standard of will later discuss herein. time, living longer period for a consider- possible It is that under expectancy years. our division of Arvid’s life of 33.1 Book, and order of (3) for an Am.Jur.2d Desk Doc. No. 141.1. period indefinite ultimately be The periodic alimony, opposed award of as obligated greater in a amount than under a lump alimony, permits par- sum either lump the trial court’s order of alimony. sum ty judgment to seek a modification of the Notwithstanding, we believe that this divi- respecting alimony change. if conditions equitable (1) sion is for three reasons: cognizant We are the continuance of alimony will depend upon ability Arvid’s spread burden on Arvid will be out over longer period sobriety of time have maintain his which and he will no means *9 assurance, predict can the future with certainty, but with this distribution of do not find error where the court has done
assets,
hopeful
we are
he will
that
be en-
the best it could and we could do no better.
couraged
every
to make
effort
to do so.
Rambel,
(N.D.
Rambel v.
children
ATTORNEY FEES
Betty’s depend
cease to be
age of 18 or
The trial court ordered Arvid to
us we are not
the record before
ents. On
Betty’s
attorney fees. We have
by the
a mistake was made
convinced
court
said that a decision
trial
on the
amount of child
awarding trial court in
attorney
will
allowance of
fees
not be inter
support.
appeal
appealing
with on
unless the
fered
court, Arvid cited
In his brief
affirmatively
establishes that the tri
Larson,
(N.D.
v.
Larson
al
has
court
abused its discretion. Bohnen
Hoster,
v.
667 $21,400 the ma- earning ability parties. year of The will have per compared the to her $13,700 abil- purporting earning $7,692, in to discuss jority, or about more income upside concept turns the whole down. ity, year. me, it is obvious that we must consider
To The trial court awarded her property val- of in to earning power the order $69,088 ued at and to him property valued who the allowances to the has make $13,524, a difference of $13,- At earning majority the power. But smaller per year he can up make the difference higher ability to opinion earning refers the in about years, four or by the time he is 43 giving here as a for of the husband reason age, of with no wife or dependents. earnings a “his larger him share because mainly responsible for the accu- have inequita- I do not understand how this is parties’ property during mulation of the the to him. ble unfair marriage” reasoning magnifies ! Such in- majority The opinion far is worse. It reducing of equity instead it. gives $21,000 of a difference only in the division, which the husband can usually earning power Wives have less up higher make out earning ability in They get wages than husbands. no about year a and a half. inequita- That is cooking, cleaning, caring for children. ble to her. they earning ability marriage, If had before away it withers from lack of employment or II. FAULT being part-time in jobs. used In meantime, gain experience,
the
husbands
far, I
So
have not even mentioned the
seniority,
pay.
and better
Without
wife
concept
fault,
called “conduct of
par
household,
at home to take care of the
ties” in the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. As I
be
husband would
unable to obtain the
have indicated above and in a dissent
in
ability
earning
he
The
has.
fact
that the Hegge
Hegge,
(N.D.
employed spouse’s earning power is often
1975),
in
a concurring
part/dissent
single
most valuable
asset of the
mar-
part
opinion in Hultberg v. Hultberg,
spouse
and the
riage,
other
contributes
(N.D.1977),
I
259 N.W.2d
believe that
acquisition.
equally to its
court,
which put in fault as a matter to
be considered in making property divisions,
recognized
courts have
supreme
Some
should
it
take
out and should
prop
consider
does, although
wife
work the
worth
erty matters in divorce cases as we would
credit. Wisconsin
little
gives wives
ours
consider property matters in dissolving a
of a
the contribution
that
recognized
it is
partnership.
considered
homemaker
full-time
as,
Be
may,
that as it
than,
great
as
that
or at least
majority, which
greater
says
considered,
v. Wilber
fault should
Wilberscheid
working spouse.
has
(1977). given
no
scheid,
me
evidence that
it
77 Wis.2d
has done so.
it makes little
The fault in
according
of that
view
In the
spouse
judge (and
outside
one
works
the majority
does not
difference
contradict
him),
within —Wisconsin
entirely
the other
the home
husband. Then
partner
union as
where is
punishment
the marital
he is to
considers
receive for
likewise.
Certainly
We should do
fault?
not in
ship.
the property
division which I have already discussed.
us, the
case
Coming now
before
analyze
has come to
how
I think
time
ability
rose from
earning
of the husband
applied in
concept of fault has been
$31,750
in 1975.
in 1973
past,
in this court
year
property division
$7,692 per
earning ability is
wife’s
the Ruff case
decided
ever since
month).
take
($641 per
Even if we
approximately 30 cases
There are
earning ability and reduce
as the husband’s
to the Ruff-Fischer
alimony,
still which have referred
per month
it
taking the
examination
actualities of divorce
Without
since then.
guidelines
all,
an
I assert
law
years,
list
them
in recent
the view that
takes
space
*11
division,
will show that
opinions
possible,
analysis
the extent
primary
Dakota:
should
“the
means of providing
North
be
spous-
for the future financial
needs
fault,
get
will
is at
(1) If
husband
the
Annot.,
Ed.,
es.” 9
Laws
Master
Uniform
example,
the
or more of
half
[for
p. 457.
Fischer, supra].
Ruff, supra, and
By
appropriate
making
divisions of prop-
fault,
get
will
the
is at
she
(2) If
wife
erty,
party gets
courts can be sure that each
example, Hegge v.
nothing
little or
[for
the
property.
his or her share of
marital
If
(even
alimony
limited
taken
Hegge, supra
awarded,
certainty
is
there is no
her),
Ferguson,
v.
Ferguson
and
paid.
will
that it
be
(N.D.1972)].
N.W.2d
fault, the
will
(3) If both are at
division
CONCLUSION
Bellon,
equal
approximately
[Bellon
reasons,
having
For all these
as well as
(N.D.1973), and
Larson
proper
52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P.,
Rule
respect for
Larson,
(N.D.1975)], or the
1975)]. indicated, note: As I I One last believe this court should rescind its court-created categories, the third one is these three Of (or lip-service to) the consideration con- (if equitable one I consider as could cept grounds of fault as one of the considered, says it majority is as fault (and division of also as one of the be). must grounds granting custody, except I no assign of affairs For state extent that misconduct affects abili- may histori- Some of the reasons blame. ty children, to care for but I leave that have tried to our Trial courts follow cal. question day). for another direction, give and tried to their we have If step this court refuses to take this them Rule rulings respect due under (which should be taken for reasons which I causes, 52(a), Regardless N.D.R.Civ.P. have in this in the stated dissent and dis- are felicitous. the results not Hegge, supra, sent and in the concur- III. PROPERTY DIVISION v. supra), then Hultberg, rence/dissent
ALIMONY Legislature take implement should action to thought doing adopt- it it was when it what ali- majority opinion indicates that The (see ed the law on irreconcilable differences proper- for division mony is substitute my Hultberg, concurrence/dissent su- experience indicates to me that it ty. Sad pra). (unless Alimony specifically not. ordered is dies, otherwise) or ends when either such Only by bring some action can we words, In other wife remarries. divorce North Dakota law into twenti- of the accumulation wife loses her share begin regard eth and century, marital remarries, during if she and something recognized breakdown as to be lose she This is her heirs it when dies. and as painlessly considerately treated Furthermore, scarcely just. much possible, gladi- as and not as an occasion for paid, is less paid to be never ordered atorial combat. paid by. roll Earn-
and less as hide, PEDERSON, Justice ings drop people away (dissenting). move collecting alimony across State lines majority opinion proper recites a frustrating than even more intrastate. premise 52(a), Rule under North Dakota Act, Procedure, Marriage and we will The Uniform Divorce Rules of Civil product thorough set finding is the of the most aside a fact unless it is clearly which means, upon erroneous. That the entire
evidence, we must be convinced that a mis- majority
take has been made. The then (on what finding
determines should be alimony), and then ultimately obligate
concludes greater in a amount than under the To that it finding. ap- court’s extent me
pears saying that we are Arvid—
you you but win lose. When the trial court *12 better,
did can its best do no we enough
should leave well alone. Rambel v.
Rambel, N.W.2d We vacating
are here our function as the re-
viewing exercising preroga-
tives of court. HABERSTROH,
Edith
Plaintiff/Appellant, HABERSTROH, R.
Gerald
Defendant/Appellee.
Civ. No. 9353.
Supreme Court of North Dakota. 12, 1977.
Oct.