Lead Opinion
[¶ 1] Dеborah F. Schiff appeals a district court judgment denying her spousal support. We affirm.
I
[¶ 2] Deborah Schiff and Jerome P. Schiff were married in 1976. They have three children, all above the age of majority. On April 7, 2011, Jerome Schiff commenced a divorce action, seeking an equitable division of the marital property. Deborah Schiff filed a counterclaim, seeking permanent spousal support. Jerome Schiff was 59 years old at the time of trial, has a high school diploma and has been a plumber since 1973. He owns his own plumbing business. Deborah Schiff was 58 years old at the time of trial and has an associate’s degree in nursing. She has been a registered nurse since 1975, has been working as the county public health nurse and had annual temporary employment as a summer camp nurse.
[¶ 3] The district cоurt held a trial, granted the divorce and found both parties equally responsible for the marital dissolution. Deborah Schiffs request for spousal support was denied. The district court divided the marital property. The district court awarded Deborah Schiff the marital home, the adjacent shop building, the lake cabin, certificates of deposit and retirement accounts, with a combined value оf $516,815. She was responsible for $50,497 in marital debt, resulting in a property award with a net value of $466,318. The district court awarded Jerome Schiff the business property and farmland, among other items, with a combined value of $608,887. He was responsible for $52,277
II
[¶ 4] Deborah Sehiff argues the district court’s denial of her request for spousal support was clearly erroneous. She argues the district court failed to consider the Ruff-Fischer factors and erred by awarding Jerome Sehiff the income-producing property. “A district court’s finding of spousal support is a finding of fact subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard.” Woodward v. Woodward,
[¶5] Spousal support may be awarded under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1. To determine whether spousal support is appropriate, the court considers the Ruff-Fischer factors, which include:
“the respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the duration of the marriage and conduct of the parties during the marriage, their station in life, the circumstances and necessities of each, their health and physical condition, their financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time, its value at the time, its income-producing capacity, if any, whether accumulated before or after the marriage, and such other matters as may be material.”
Woodward,
[¶ 6] The district court did not make separate findings under each of the Ruff-Fischer factors. Instead, the district court found:
“[Deborah Sehiff] is an educated and professional woman who is able bodied and currently employed. While she would like to retire soon, this is not a special right she has earned by her marriage to [Jerome Sehiff]. Her health issues do not prevent her from working until a more typical retirement age. She will also receive a reasonable amount of marital equity for her use and suppоrt following this divorce.”
Regarding the division of the marital property, the district court stated:
“The Court has considered the Ruff-Fischer guidelines in distribution of the net marital estate and the established concept of each receiving approximately 50% of the marital estate unless there is reason to deviate from an equal split. The parties agree to an equal split of the marital estаte but dispute some values and which party should receive the property. The Court will also consider, when possible or appropriate, the individual property requests of the parties.”
The district court concluded, “[Deborah Sehiff] is an able-bodied woman capable of earning a reasonable income until she reaches retirement age, and being awarded sufficient mаrital assets, so no spousal support is awarded.”
[¶ 7] Deborah Sehiff argues the district court’s analysis was inadequate. “The court does not need to make a finding on every factor, but must explain the rationale for its decision.” Woodward,
Ill
[¶ 8] Deborah Schiff argues the district court erred by awarding Jerome Schiff the business property and farmland. She argues the lack of an award of income producing property and lack of spousal support will require her to deplete her marital equity for her support. “Relevant to a spousal support determination is the distribution of marital property, the liquid nature of the property, and the income-producing nature of property.” Marschner v. Marschner,
[¶ 9] Deborah Schiff relies on Mar-schner, where we reversed and remanded a trial court’s award of a family farm solely to the husband.
[¶ 10] First, the concept of a disadvantaged spouse is not a separate legal consideration but part of the Ruff-Fischer analysis. Krueger v. Krueger,
[¶ 11] The district court noted the pаrties agreed to an equal split of the marital estate but disputed some values and which party should receive particular assets. The district court stated it considered the Ruff-Fischer factors and the requests of the parties and found Jerome Schiff arranged to purchase the farmland from his family in 1995. The district court’s decision was based on sufficient evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
IV
[¶ 12] Debоrah Schiff argues the district court’s valuation of the marital assets was clearly erroneous. “A district court’s valuation of property is a finding of fact and will only be reversed on appeal if it is clearly erroneous.” Dronen v. Dronen,
[¶ 13] The parties’ valuations of the assets differed. Deborah Schiff valued the marital home at $75,000 and assigned no value to the appliances, labeling them as fixtures. Jerome Schiff valued the marital home at $90,000 and included values for the appliances. The district court’s valuation was within the range of evidence presented. Dronen,
V
[¶ 14] Deborah Schiff argues the district court’s finding her medical bills and a portion of her attorney fees were not part of the debts of the marital estate was clearly erroneous. “All of the marital assets and debts must be included for the court to distribute the marital assets under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.” Brandner v. Brandner,
[¶ 15] The district court found Deborah Sehiffs $3,000 medical bill was “based upon her deductible costs from her insurance coverage. This is not a marital debt.” The district court also found both parties were responsible for their respective attorney fees, but reduced Deborah Sehiffs amount of attorney fees included in the calculation of marital debt from $37,273 to $30,000. Deborah Schiff argues these debts should have been included in the district court’s calculatiоn of the marital debt because they were accumulated after the parties’ separation but before the divorce. Generally, “assets accumulated after separation but prior to divorce are included in the marital estate.” Kosobud v. Kosobud,
[¶ 16] Given the size of the marital estate in this case, these debts are relatively small. “A relatively insignificant error in valuation of a marital asset will nоt, standing alone, constitute sufficient grounds for reversal of the judgment.” Halvorson v. Halvorson,
VI
[¶ 17] The district court judgment is affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
[¶ 19] I, respectfully, dissent from parts II and III of the majority opinion. I am of the opinion the trial court clearly erred in its decision with regard to spousal support and property distribution. I would reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for sufficient findings as to Deborah Schiffs need for spousal support and Jerome Schiffs ability to pay spousal support and for a proper аpplication of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
[¶ 20] When awarding spousal support, the trial court must consider the supporting spouse’s needs and ability to pay and the receiving spouse’s income and needs. Paulson v. Paulson,
The respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the duration of the marriage and conduct of the parties during the marriage, their station in life, the circumstances and necessities of each, their health and physical condition, their financial circumstances as shown by the property owned аt the time, its value at the time, its income-producing capacity, if any, whether accumulated before or after the marriage, and such other matters as may be material.
Hoverson, at ¶ 9 (emphasis added); Fischer v. Fischer,
[¶ 21] This Court will reverse a spousal support decision if the trial court fails to make sufficient findings with regard to the parties’ needs and ability to pay. See Paulson,
[¶ 22] In Paulson, this Court concluded the trial court failed to analyze the spouse’s needs and the supporting spouse’s ability to pay.
[¶ 23] Here, the trial court denied Deborah Schiffs request for spousal support. The trial court found:
[Deborah Schiff] is an educated and professional woman who is able bodied and currently employed. While she would like to retire soon, this is not a special right she has earned by her marriagе to [Jerome Schiff]. Her health issues do not prevent her from working until a more typical retirement age. She will also receive a reasonable amount of marital equity for her use and support following this divorce.
The trial court also found Deborah Schiff earns approximately $2,735 per month while Jerome Schiffs current gross income is $47,290 or approximately $3,950 per month. The trial court did not make any findings with respect to Deborah Schiffs need for spousal support or Jerome Schiffs need and ability to pay spousal support. Without sufficient findings of fact, this Court is unable to discern the basis for the trial court’s decision. Therefore, I would reverse for sufficient findings of fact with regard to the parties’ needs and Jerome Schiffs ability to pay spousal support.
[¶ 24] The trial court justifies the spоusal support decision by finding “[Deborah Schiff] will receive a reasonable amount of the marital equity for her use and support following this divorce.” This conclusion is disingenuous. The trial court found “because [Jerome Schiff] is awarded the real property, a cash settlement must be provided to [Deborah Schiff] to make the distribution equitable.” Among the real property awarded to Jeromе Schiff is all of the marital estate’s incoming-producing property, namely the farming operation. Under the Rujf-Fischer guidelines, the trial court in awarding spousal support and property distribution must consider “[the parties] financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time, its value at the time, [and] its income-producing capacity, if any....” Paulson,
[¶ 25] This Court has reversed and remanded a trial court’s spousal support decision when the trial court’s spousal support decision required a spouse to deplete her cash property distribution as a basis for support while awarding the other spouse income-producing property. See Marschner v. Marschner,
Although this distribution may not be characterized as a “windfall” to Richard Marschner, the effect of the property distribution is to require Carol Mar-schner to forego spоusal support because she is to receive her property distribution in a cash payment. As a result, she will be required to deplete her property distribution for living expenses. Richard Marschner will retain the farm.... Richard Marschner will retain an income-producing asset while Carol Marschner will have depleted her share of the property distribution to find a residence and otherwise subsist.
Id. at ¶ 19. This Cоurt reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the spousal support decision and the property distribution. Id. at ¶ 23.
[¶ 26] This case is virtually identical to the facts in Marschner. Here, Jerome Schiff was awarded all of the income-producing assets, which consisted of the farming operation, while Deborah Schiff was awarded a cash settlement. While preserving a family farm is a “laudable purpose,” it “is to be achieved only if it is possible to do sо without detriment to the other party.” Id. at ¶ 17. “Preserving the family farm is not to be done at all costs nor should it engulf all other factors. Rather, we have said its purpose is to avoid the potential for economic hardship if the farm is divided or sold.” Id. at ¶ 18 (quotation omitted). The trial court relied on Deborah Schiffs cash settlement to conclude Deborah Schiff was not entitled to spousal support. A “spouse is not required to deplete her property distribution in order to live.” Id. at ¶ 16. I am of the opinion the trial court misapplied the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and the spousal support decision is clearly erroneous.
[¶ 27] Further, I am of the opinion the property distribution is clearly erroneous. An equitable distribution of property should account for disparate division of income-producing property awarded to each spouse. Sanford v. Sanford,
[¶ 28] Here, the trial court awarded Jerоme Schiff all of the income-producing property and Deborah Schiff a cash settlement. Although the property distribution is approximately a 50% split, when viewed with the trial court’s denial of spousal support and the income-producing capacity of the assets each party received, the spousal support award and the property distribution are clearly erroneous. See Marschner,
[¶29] Therefore, I would reverse and remand for sufficient findings with regard to Deborah Schiffs need for spousal support and Jerome Schiffs needs and ability to pay spousal support and for a proper application of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines with regard to spousal support and property distribution.
[¶ 30] MARY MUEHLEN MARING.