|9:00am||Thursday, November 29, 2012|
Carl Michael Hoverson, Plaintiff, Appellee
Sandra Morten Hoverson, Defendant, Appellant
|Appeal from:||Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County, Judge Sonja Clapp, 18-10-C-01761|
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I.Was the District Court's Spousal Support Award Clearly Erroneous?
A.Was the Duration of Spousal Support Awarded Clearly Erroneous?
B.Was the Amount of Spousal Support Awarded Clearly Erroneous?
i.Is the Trial Court's Conclusion that the Substantial Disparity in Income has been Adjusted by the Property Division Contrary to Law?
II.Was the District Court's Property Division Clearly Erroneous?
A.Is the District Court's Conclusion that Carl was not Culpable of Non-Economic Fault Clearly Erroneous?
B.Did the District Court Err in Failing to Take Into Consideration Carl's Dissipation of Assets by Committing Economic Fault?
C.Is the Formula Used by the District Court to Allocate the Division of Property Contrary to Law?
D.Did the District Court Commit Reversible Error in Valuing Assets as of October 31, 2010, Rather Than Date of Divorce?
E.Did the District Court Err in Discounting the Value of Hoverson Farms?
III.Is the Amount of Child Support Determined by the District Court Clearly Erroneous?
Reply Brief Issues
I. Did the Trial Court Abuse its Discretion in Ordering Carl to Pay Sandra's Attorney's Fees and Costs?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. The Trial Court erred in awarding Sandra Hoverson 2.8 million dollars in assets
A. The finding that Carl was not guilty of non-economic fault is not clearly erroneous
B. The finding that Carl dissipated assets was erroneous, and the Court below did take it into account in division of assets.
C. The court did not err in using October 31, 2010 and December 31, 2010 as the valuation dates for the businesses.
D. The trial court did not err in the manner in which it discounted the value of Hoverson Farms.
II. The Court erred in awarding even temporary support in this matter.
III. The Court erred in awarding additional child support.
IV. The Court erred in ordering Carl to pay Sandra's attorney's fees.
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 04/24/2013