Olson v. Olson

20010156 David Lee Olson, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Mary Ann Olson, Defendant and Appellant
Appeal from: District Court, Southeast Judicial District, Barnes County
Judge Mikal Simonson
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellant: #Burgum Law Firm, P.C.
Appellee: #Ohnstad Twichell, P.C.
Term: 12/2001   Argument: 12/13/2001  9:30am
ND cite: 2002 ND 30
NW cite: 639 N.W.2d 701

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
PROPERTY DIVISION
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?
CHILD SUPPORT
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 Add Docket 20010156 RSS
Docket entries:
106/18/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/15/2001
206/18/2001 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/15/2001
306/22/2001 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (Bunice Heidtke, Court Recorder): 09/13/2001
407/26/2001 MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT (Bunice Heidtke, Court Recorder)
507/26/2001 ACTION BY TRIAL COURT (MTR). Granted: 09/13/2001
608/30/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 7, 2000
708/31/2001 DISK - TRA
809/04/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL, Exhibits, and original Transcript dated 10-26-99
910/06/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF
1010/06/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1110/08/2001 DISK - ATB
1211/07/2001 APPELLEE BRIEF
1311/07/2001 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1411/08/2001 DISK - AEB
1512/13/2001 APPEARANCES: John C. Irby; Duane R. Breitling
1612/13/2001 ARGUED: Irby; Breitling (Vol. X; Page 186)
1712/13/2001 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1802/20/2002 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT
1902/20/2002 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
2002/20/2002 Pursuant to the Court's direction, no costs awarded.
2102/21/2002 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
2203/14/2002 MANDATE
2303/18/2002 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2409/06/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 09/26/2016