Knudson v. Knudson

916 N.W.2d 793

Tamra L. KNUDSON, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.Mark D. KNUDSON, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20170435

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Filed August 28, 2018

Elizabeth L. Pendlay, Crosby, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.

David M. Knoll, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee.

McEvers, Justice.

[¶ 1] Tamra Knudson appeals from a judgment granting her a divorce from Mark Knudson, denying her request for spousal support, and ordering her to pay child support. We conclude the district court’s decision denying Tamra Knudson’s request for rehabilitative spousal support is not clearly erroneous and the court did not misapply the law in calculating her child support obligation. We affirm.

I

[¶ 2] Tamra and Mark Knudson were married in October 1998. Tamra Knudson had a child from a prior relationship, and Mark Knudson later adopted the child. The parties had three more children together during the marriage. In 2016, Tamra Knudson filed for divorce. Three of the parties’ children were minors at the time of the divorce, and the oldest of the three minor children was seventeen years old and a senior in high school.

[¶ 3] Tamra Knudson requested the district court award her primary residential responsibility of the parties’ three minor children, child support according to the child support guidelines, and rehabilitative spousal support for six years. Mark Knudson argued spousal support was unnecessary and the parties had a prenuptial agreement that applied to the division of their property. He also requested that he be awarded primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor children and child support.

[¶ 4] Before trial, the parties reached an agreement on the division of their property and debts. Neither party challenged the validity of the premarital agreement. The parties also reached an agreement on a parenting plan for the two youngest minor children. The parties’ agreement resolved all parenting issues for the two children, other than child support. The parties agreed they would have joint residential responsibility for the two youngest children with parenting time alternating weeks. The district court adopted the parties’ stipulations after the trial.

[¶ 5] On April 25, 2017, a divorce trial was held on the remaining issues. The parties advised the district court that the only issues left to be determined were Tamra Knudson’s request for spousal support, residential responsibility for the oldest minor child, and child support.

[¶ 6] On June 13, 2017, the district court ordered that Mark Knudson be awarded primary residential responsibility of the parties’ oldest minor child. Tamra Knudson was awarded parenting time every other Wednesday evening and every other weekend, with extra time during the summer. The court also entered an order denying Tamra Knudson’s request for spousal support.

[¶ 7] The parties filed proposed child support calculations and supporting briefs. On July 25, 2017, the district court ordered Tamra Knudson pay $403 per month in child support for the three minor children after the court calculated each party’s child support obligation based on their net monthly income and offset the support obligations. The court also ordered Tamra Knudson’s child support obligation would decrease to $57 per month after her support obligation for the oldest minor child ended.

[¶ 8] On October 12, 2017, the district court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. The court made detailed findings and restated its prior decisions, including its decisions on residential responsibility for the children, child support, and spousal support. Judgment was subsequently entered.

II

[¶ 9] Tamra Knudson argues the district court erred by denying her request for rehabilitative spousal support. She claims there was evidence establishing that she is a disadvantaged spouse with a need for rehabilitative spousal support and that Mark Knudson has the ability to pay. She contends the court’s findings are not supported by the evidence and the court relied on inappropriate factors.

[¶ 10] A spousal support decision is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. See Schmuck v. Schmuck , 2016 ND 87, ¶ 6, 882 N.W.2d 918. "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." Id. (quoting Krueger v. Krueger , 2008 ND 90, ¶ 7, 748 N.W.2d 671 ).

[¶ 11] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1, the district court may order spousal support after taking the parties’ circumstances into consideration. The court must consider the needs of the spouse seeking support and the ability of the other spouse to pay. Allmon v. Allmon , 2017 ND 122, ¶ 15, 894 N.W.2d 869. The court must also consider the Ruff - Fischer guidelines, including the following factors:

[T]he 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.

Schmuck , 2016 ND 87, ¶ 6, 882 N.W.2d 918 (quoting Harvey v. Harvey , 2014 ND 208, ¶ 15, 855 N.W.2d 657 ); see Fischer v. Fischer , 139 N.W.2d 845, 852 (N.D. 1966) ; Ruff v. Ruff , 78 N.D. 775, 784, 52 N.W.2d 107, 111 (1952). The court is not required to make specific findings on each Ruff - Fischer factor, but we must be able to determine the reasons for the court’s decision. Berg v. Berg , 2018 ND 79, ¶ 9, 908 N.W.2d 705. Economic and non-economic fault are appropriate factors for the court to consider. Schmuck , at ¶ 6.

[¶ 12] Rehabilitative spousal support is awarded to equalize the burdens of divorce or to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent status. Berg , 2018 ND 79, ¶ 9, 908 N.W.2d 705. Rehabilitative support provides a disadvantaged spouse with an opportunity to acquire an education, training, work skills, or experience to become self-supporting. Id. Property division and spousal support are interrelated and often must be considered together. Id.

[¶ 13] On June 13, 2017, the district court denied Tamra Knudson’s request for spousal support. The court explained:

[B]ased upon [Tamra Knudson’s] marital conduct, her ability to earn income and the sufficiency of her assets, including income producing assets, received in the property settlement to meet her financial needs, as well as [Mark Knudson’s] inability to pay spousal support with his income, [Tamra Knudson’s] request for spousal support is hereby DENIED.

[¶ 14] The district court further explained its decision in its October 11, 2017, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. The court made detailed findings about the Ruff - Fischer factors. The court found the parties had been married since 1998, they resided in a modest farmhouse on the Knudson family farmstead, and they maintained a modest lifestyle during the marriage. The court found Mark Knudson was forty-seven years old, he had a bachelor’s degree, he was in good health but experienced some health issues in connection with the end of the marriage, and he has worked as a farmer since he was a teenager. The court found Tamra Knudson was forty-five years old, she was a high school graduate, she did not have any physical or mental conditions which would impair her ability to work, she had worked at various service jobs before the marriage, and she worked on the farm during the marriage. The court found Tamra Knudson had experience in a variety of farming services from working on the farm, she was attending college to become a licensed massage therapist, and she was not required to pay tuition due to her involvement in a tuition waiver program. The court considered each party’s financial situation and found:

Tamra receives substantial liquid assets and income-producing assets through the parties’ division of property and debts. Tamra receives three bank accounts containing balances over $170,000.00. She also receives Mark’s Stifel investment account with a value of more than $64,000. As such, she receives approximately $234,000 in cash and liquid assets. Additionally, Tamra receives both parties’ IRA and Roth IRA accounts which are worth a total of $71,765. In the parties’ property division, Tamra receives four quarters of land valued at $437,667, a life estate in five quarters of Mark’s land included in the Prenuptial Agreement in which the parties’ children receive the remainder interest, mineral interests valued at $495,433, cattle valued at $16,200, her 2015 Chevy Suburban valued at $35,000, the parties’ timeshare in Las Vegas, and other assets. Through the property and debt division, Tamra receives assets valued at over $1,233,000, exclusive of her household property items, the value of the Las Vegas timeshare, and the value of her life estate interest in the five quarter sections of farmland. Tamra does not receive any marital debt in the agreement and did not have any debt at the time of the trial.

Tamra’s income was $316,317 in 2016. Mark’s income was $90,981 in 2016.... Tamra’s income averages $123,057 from 2012 through 2016. While Mark has a higher average income of $145,173 during that time, most of Mark’s income is derived from operating his farming business which has been sporadic over the past three years. Most of Tamra’s income is derived from leases and royalty income from her assets. Tamra has 720 mineral acres in Williams County upon which she had one producing well at the time of the trial. Tamra has the potential to derive a very substantial amount of income from her mineral interests.

(Internal citations omitted.)

[...