Ritter v. Ritter

1

2024 ND 147

Megan Ann Solem Ritter, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Philip Leslie Ritter, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240041

Supreme Court of North Dakota

July 18, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Bradley A. Cruff, Judge.

Amy M Clark, Wahpeton, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Will R. Budke, Wahpeton, ND, for defendant and appellant.

OPINION

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Philip Ritter appeals from a divorce judgment. Philip Ritter argues the district court erred in valuing and distributing the marital estate, in awarding Megan Ritter spousal support and calculating his child support obligation. We conclude the court did not clearly err in its valuation and distribution of the marital estate, in awarding Megan Ritter spousal support, or in calculating Philip Ritter's child support obligation. We affirm.

I

[¶2] Philip Ritter and Megan Ritter were married in Minnesota in May 2008. The parties have three minor children together-B.L.R., born in 2007; K.P.R., born in 2010; and M.A.R., born in 2015. Megan Ritter has another, non-joint child who resides with her.

[¶3] From approximately 2008 to 2014, Megan Ritter was the primary income-earner working as a nurse or in risk management at a medical facility. Philip Ritter has been employed as a territory manager selling medical equipment on a commission basis since 2014. In 2017, Philip Ritter was offered an opportunity which required moving to North Dakota. Philip Ritter's earnings have fluctuated over the years including while the parties were married and during their separation. The testimony and documents submitted by the parties at trial show Philip Ritter earned: $364,294.82 in 2020; $479,208.96 in 2021; $240,549.38 in 2022; and $6,037.69 per week from January to May 2023.

[¶4] After moving the family to Wahpeton, Megan Ritter was unable to maintain her risk management position and obtained a part-time nursing position. In 2018, per the suggestion of Philip Ritter, Megan Ritter left her part-time position to stay home full-time. Megan Ritter remained at home with the children for approximately a year-and-a-half. In 2019, Megan Ritter obtained employment with her former employer in its risk management department working remotely earning a gross income of $68,368.78 in 2022.

[¶5] Megan Ritter commenced an action against Philip Ritter for divorce in July 2022. Trial was held in June 2023. At trial, both parties submitted exhibits and testified. The parties disputed the value of the marital home, including the value of a kitchen remodel that was still uncompleted at the time of trial. Also at issue was Philip Ritter's income for purposes of child support and spousal support, as well as a number of the parties' debts.

[¶6] In November 2023, the district court entered an order for judgment and an addendum showing the itemization of the marital estate asset and debt distribution. The court awarded Megan Ritter primary residential responsibility of the children and awarded the parties joint decision-making responsibility; valued and distributed the marital property and debt; awarded Megan Ritter spousal support in the amount of $2,000 per month from January 1, 2024 to October 1, 2033; and awarded Megan Ritter child support in the amount of $4,023 per month. Judgment was entered in December 2023. Philip Ritter appeals.

II

[¶7] Philip Ritter argues the district court erred in valuing the parties' marital home, distributing the parties' assets and debts, and not requiring the parties to refinance the marital home.

[¶8] These issues are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.

A district court's property valuations and division are findings of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is induced by an erroneous view of the law there is no evidence to support it, or, after reviewing the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. The district court's valuations depend on the evidence the parties present, and we presume the court's valuations are correct. A court's property valuation is not clearly erroneous if it is within the range of evidence presented. In an appeal after a bench trial, this Court will not second-guess a district court's credibility determinations.

Orwig v. Orwig, 2021 ND 33, ¶ 22, 955 N.W.2d 34 (cleaned up).

[¶9] The district court must make an equitable distribution of the parties' property and debts. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1). In doing so, the court must consider all of the parties' assets and debts and apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 ND 86, ¶ 3, 990 N.W.2d 581. Although specific findings are not required under each Ruff-Fischer guideline, the court must state the rationale for its distribution. Willprecht v. Willprecht, 2020 ND 77, ¶ 19, 941 N.W.2d 556. The Ruff-Fischer guidelines include:

[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.

Orwig, 2021 ND 33, ¶ 35 (quoting Tarver v. Tarver, 2019 ND 189, ¶ 15, 931 N.W.2d 187).

A

[¶10] Philip Ritter argues the district court erred in calculating the value of the marital home because the tax-assessed value of the home should have been calculated by multiplying the assessed value by approximately 118%, not 110%, to account for comparable homes selling in excess of assessed values. Philip Ritter also argues the kitchen remodel was undervalued at $30,000, resulting in a lower and incorrect valuation of the marital home. Megan Ritter argued the court's calculation of the marital home was not clearly erroneous because it incorporated both parties' methods of valuation and included the value of the kitchen renovations.

[¶11] To determine the value of the marital home, the district court relied on (1) the parties' testimony regarding the home's current value and the value of the kitchen remodel-no appraisal was provided, (2) the deed showing a purchase price of $236,000, and (3) the most recent tax statement showing a full and true value of $271,400. Based on the evidence presented, the court found the kitchen renovation cost $30,000 and added that amount to the total value of the home. The court also incorporated a 10% increase in the value of the marital home to account for homes often selling for more than the tax-assessed value. The court concluded the value of the marital home was $328,540.

[¶12] Philip Ritter argues that the testimony only supports an increased value of 18.13% as his basis to show clear error. Philip Ritter also argues the court erred in valuing the kitchen remodel. As to the valuation of the marital home, the range of evidence provided by the parties established the value of the marital home between $300,000 and $400,000. The district court used a combination of the parties' valuations based on the evidence presented to determine the value of the marital home was $328,540. The value of the kitchen remodel was also within the range of the evidence. A trial court may weigh spouses' competing testimony on the value of marital property. Braun v. Braun, 532 N.W.2d 367, 370 (N.D. 1995). We conclude the court's valuation of the marital home is not clearly erroneous. See Langwald v. Langwald, 2016 ND 81, ¶¶ 5-7, 878 N.W.2d 71 (affirming a trial court's valuation of real estate as the findings were within the range of evidence provided).

B

[¶13] Philip Ritter argues the district court erred in allocating him the Bank of America Platinum Plus Credit Card debt. Philip Ritter also argues the equalization payment was clearly erroneous in light of the home valuation error and erroneous distribution of credit card debt. Megan Ritter argues the court properly distributed the assets and debts.

[¶14] The district court reviewed the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and found they favored Megan Ritter receiving a larger share of the marital estate. However, the court divided the marital estate equally because Megan Ritter testified she would accept an equal distribution of the marital estate if Philip Ritter was allocated both the Bank of America Platinum Plus Credit Card debt and the Bremer Bank Line of Credit debt.

[¶15] Philip Ritter does not contest his obligation for the Bremer Bank Line of Credit debt. Regarding the Bank of America Platinum Plus Credit Card debt, Philip Ritter argues the district court erred by not including the entire debt as part of the marital estate and the court's findings were inconsistent with the testimony at trial. The court found the card was opened after the divorce proceedings began and held an existing balance of $18,127 at the time of trial. The court found the account statement showed a $12,000 balance transfer, which was supported by Philip Ritter's testimony that he used the credit card to take on debts transferred from other credit cards. The credit card statement showed a previous balance of $5,825.78 prior to the $12,000 balance transfer. Regarding the remaining debt, the court found:

However, there is no explanation for the $5,825 balance before the $12,000 balance transfer. Page 3 of the exhibit indicates only $7,581 of the total balance is interest free until October 20, 2024. Interest of $360 was charged for the current billing cycle and $529 year to date, a significant amount for two and 2/3 months. The court considers

...