Olson v. Olson
David Lee Olson, Plaintiff and Appellee
Mary Ann Olson, Defendant and Appellant
Southeast Judicial District,
Judge Mikal Simonson
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||12/2001  Argument: 12/13/2001 9:30am|
|ND cite:||2002 ND 30|
639 N.W.2d 701
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Three experts testified on the issue of valuation of the parties' insurance agency for property division purposes. The court found the calculation method used by David Olson's expert, Rod Ross, to be the most reliable. Did the court err when it applied the Rod Ross formula to the Olson's agency by reducing the amount of insurance renewal commissions to 75% of their value before applying the formula (Finding of Fact No. 25). Further, did the court err when it deducted a debt created by David Olson from the value of the agency.
2. Mary Ann turned the entire insurance agency over to the David Olson in August of 1999 and received payment for the court-determined value of the business in June 2001. Did the court err in not awarding the Defendant interest on the value of the agency, which the Plaintiff controlled in its entirety, from August 1999 to June 2001?
3. Although the parties dictated their stipulation on the payment of child support into the record, did the court's order differ from the stipulation and is the order allowable as no financial or income information was contained in the order (Finding of Fact No. 22)?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The trial court's determination of the value of Northland Security Insurance Services is not clearly erroneous because it was not induced by an erroneous view of the law, but is supported by evidence and is not the product of a mistake.
2. The trial court's determination of the value of Northland Security Insurance Services, which did not include an award of interest, is not clearly erroneous because it is consistent with the parties' stipulation.
3. The trial court's finding regarding child support was not erroneous because it was made in accordance with the parties' stipulation.
|Add Docket 20010156 RSS|
|1||06/18/2001||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/15/2001|
|2||06/18/2001||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/15/2001|
|3||06/22/2001||RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (Bunice Heidtke, Court Recorder): 09/13/2001|
|4||07/26/2001||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT (Bunice Heidtke, Court Recorder)|
|5||07/26/2001||ACTION BY TRIAL COURT (MTR). Granted: 09/13/2001|
|6||08/30/2001||TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 7, 2000|
|7||08/31/2001||DISK - TRA|
|8||09/04/2001||RECORD ON APPEAL, Exhibits, and original Transcript dated 10-26-99|
|11||10/08/2001||DISK - ATB|
|14||11/08/2001||DISK - AEB|
|15||12/13/2001||APPEARANCES: John C. Irby; Duane R. Breitling|
|16||12/13/2001||ARGUED: Irby; Breitling (Vol. X; Page 186)|
|17||12/13/2001||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|18||02/20/2002||DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|19||02/20/2002||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|20||02/20/2002||Pursuant to the Court's direction, no costs awarded.|
|21||02/21/2002||Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|23||03/18/2002||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|24||09/06/2007||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|