Williams v. Williams

999 N.W.2d 192

2023 ND 240

Jennifer Michelle WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.Aron Lyle WILLIAMS, Defendant and AppellantandState of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20230201

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Filed December 15, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Reid A. Brady, Judge.

Jennifer M. Williams, Fargo, ND, plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Victoria C. Hicks (argued) and Leslie J. Aldrich (on brief), Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Aron Williams appeals from a third amended judgment modifying his child support obligation, arguing the district court erred in calculating his income for child support purposes by improperly categorizing him as a "farm manager" and imputing income based on that designation. We hold the court did not clearly err when it imputed the North Dakota statewide average income of a farmer to Aron Williams for purposes of child support. Aron Williams also argues that the court erred with respect to its decisions on evidentiary matters and awarding attorney’s fees to Jennifer Williams. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s motion to reopen the record or in awarding attorney’s fees. We affirm.

I

[¶12] Aron Williams and Jennifer Williams have two children together and divorced in February 2018. Jennifer Williams was awarded primary residential responsibility of the children. Aron Williams was ordered to pay child support based on his classification as an experienced farmer with an imputed gross annual income of $97,164. In July 2019, Aron Williams moved to modify child support. The district court found Aron Williams was employed as a farm laborer earning $38,260 as gross annual income and received in-kind annual income of $11,220. The court ordered a modified child support obligation and entered the first amended judgment. The court later entered a second amended judgment modifying parent- ing time which was affirmed on appeal. See Williams v. Williams, 2021 ND 134, 962 N.W.2d 601.

[¶3] In June 2022, Jennifer Williams moved to modify the second amended judgment, seeking modification of parenting time provisions, increased child support, and for contempt for violating the judgment. The district court scheduled a hearing on the motion for September 2022. Prior to the hearing, a discovery dispute arose between the parties. Jennifer Williams moved to compel discovery and to continue the child support modification hearing until Aron Williams provided the requested discovery responses. The court granted Jennifer Williams’s motion on the issues of parenting time and contempt, and continued the child support issue.

[¶4] In November 2022, the district court held a hearing on Jennifer Williams’s motion to compel. The court granted Jennifer Williams’s motion to compel, finding Aron Williams failed to answer or respond to discovery requests by providing evasive or incomplete answers or responses, and such conduct was not substantially justified. The court ordered Aron Williams to pay $4,185 to Jennifer Williams for her reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion to compel.

[¶5] A hearing on the child support issue was held in February 2023. Jennifer Williams, Aron Williams, and Aron Williams’s father, Lyle Williams, testified at the hearing. After the child support hearing, Aron Williams moved to reopen the record, arguing it was necessary to clarify Lyle Williams’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing and to submit additional exhibits. Jennifer Williams opposed the motion. The district court denied the motion to reopen the record, finding Aron Williams failed to show a sufficient basis for reopening the evidentiary record.

[¶6] The district court found Aron Williams failed to provide reliable information regarding his earning income, particularly his in-kind income. The court found Aron Williams received significant in-kind income from his family and determined his total in-kind annual income was at least $52,627.88. The court also found information about Aron Williams’s income could not be reasonably obtained from sources other than him, and his family members who employed him were not willing to provide such information. Because reliable information was not available to determine his income, the court determined his income must be imputed under N.D. Amin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6)(b).

[¶7] To determine Aron Williams’s gross annual income, the district court compared his job duties to the descriptions of "Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers" and "Farm Laborers or Farm Workers" in the 2021 Employment and Wages by Occupation report published by Job Service of North Dakota ("Job Service report"). The court found Aron Williams was a farmer based on Aron Williams’s past farming experience, active participation in major farming activities, and help coordinating the operation of his parent’s and extended family’s farming operation. The court also found Aron Williams did not perform the duties of a farm laborer or farm worker listed in the Job Service report. Based on the statewide average annual earnings of a farmer in North Dakota, the court imputed income of $107,300, resulting in a $1,842 monthly child support obligation after deductions.

[¶8] The district court entered the order for third amended judgment and the third amended judgment in April 2023. Aron Williams timely appeals.

II

[1] [¶9] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in denying his motion to reopen the record to clarify Lyle Williams’s testimony about his lack of ability to perform the duties of a farmer and for him to present additional evidence relating to the pay and qualifications of a farmer in North Dakota.

[2, 3] [¶10] Reopening the record is an evidentiary issue subject to the abuse of discretion standard. See Innis-Smith v. Smith, 2018 ND 34, ¶ 13, 905 N.W.2d 914 ("District courts have broad discretion in allowing or refusing to allow a party, after having rested, to reopen the record to introduce additional evidence."). "A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision." Id.

[¶11] The district court concluded the record did not need to be reopened to include this additional evidence because Lyle Williams had already answered specific questions about Aron Williams’s duties involving farm management, and the additional evidence was largely irrelevant. The court found Aron Williams had ample time to prepare his witness and present evidence of his job qualifications. Aron Williams does not argue that the proffered evidence could not have been presented at the time of the evidentiary hearing. See Vandal v. Leno, 2014 ND 45, ¶¶ 26-29, 843 N.W.2d 313 (concluding the district court did not err when it denied the motion to reopen the record because the evidence sought to be included could have been obtained earlier).

[¶12] Under the circumstances of this case, the district court’s findings are not arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable, nor did the court misinterpret or misapply the law in determining that reopening the record was not justified. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s motion to reopen the record.

III

[¶13] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in calculating his income to determine his child support obligation.

[4–7] [¶14] Our standard of review for child support decisions is well established:

Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if, on the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Updike v. Updike, 2022 ND 99, ¶ 5, 974 N.W.2d 360 (quoting Schrodt v. Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 19, 971 N.W.2d 861). "The amount of child support calculated under the guidelines is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support in all child support determinations." Thompson v. Johnson, 2018 ND 142, ¶ 9, 912 N.W.2d 315 (quotations omitted).

[8] [¶15] Chapter 75-02-04.1, N.D. Admin. Code, governs child support determinations. Thompson, 2018 ND 142, ¶ 9, 912 N.W.2d 315. The district court must have sufficient reliable information relating to the obligor’s income in order to arrive at a proper child support calculation. Schurmann v. Schurmann, 2016 ND 69, ¶ 20, 877 N.W.2d 20 (noting a district court cannot rely on inaccurate or incomplete information to arrive at a child support calculation); N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-02(7) ("Income must be sufficiently documented through the use of tax returns, current wage statements, and other information to fully apprise the court of all gross income."). If the obligor fails to provide reliable information regarding his gross income from earnings, and that information cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources, income must be imputed, N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6).

[¶16] Gross income includes salaries, wages, overtime wages, and income imputed based upon earning capacity. N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(4)(b). "‘Earnings’ includes in-kind income and amounts received in lieu of actual earnings, such as social security benefits, workers’ compensation wage replacement benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans’ benefits, and earned income tax credits …." N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(1)(a).

A

[9] [¶17] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in considering his in-kind income and improperly relied on...