Hoverson v. Hoverson

20120281 Carl Michael Hoverson, Plaintiff, Appellee
and Cross-Appellant
v.
Sandra Morten Hoverson, Defendant, Appellant
and Cross-Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Sonja Clapp
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellee: Scott David Jensen
Appellant: Robert John Schultz
Appellant: Anna Krystine Wischer
Term: 11/2012   Argument: 11/29/2012  9:00am
ND cite: 2013 ND 48
NW cite: 828 N.W.2d 510

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: 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.

Add Docket 20120281 RSS Add Docket 20120281 RSS

Docket entries:
106/28/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/27/2012
206/28/2012 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT
307/02/2012 Acknowledgment of OTR from Court Reporter Tracy Jirout
407/09/2012 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL (filed in trial court 6-29-12)
508/01/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 07/31/2012 (ENTRY NOS. 1 - 256 ) (ENTRY NOS. 8 NOT SCANNED IN)
608/01/2012 (ENTRY NOS.240 & 247 deleted entries)
708/02/2012 AMENDED ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 08/01/2012 (ENTRY NOS. 1-239, 241-246, 248-258)
808/02/2012 (ENTRY NOS. 240 & 247 deleted entries)
908/15/2012 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 12/6/11, 12/7/11, 12/8/11 AND 12/15/12, & C.O.S.
1008/15/2012 DISK-tra (12/6/11, 12/7/11, 12/8/11 and 12/15/12) e-mailed
1108/17/2012 1st ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED August 16, 2012 (ENTRY NOS.259-272)
1208/22/2012 2nd SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 08/21/2012 (ENTRY NOS.273-275)
1309/26/2012 3rd ELEC. SUPP. REC ON APPEAL DATED 9/25/12 (ENTRY NOS.276-287, 289-291) ENTRY NO. 288-DELETED
1409/24/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF (PDF)
1509/24/2012 E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)
1609/24/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1709/24/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX
1809/27/2012 Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #21516)
1910/01/2012 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating
2010/01/2012 Received $250 e-filing surcharge for ATA (Receipt #21524)
2110/02/2012 Received 7 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating
2210/18/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF
2310/18/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
2410/18/2012 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2510/18/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX
2610/22/2012 Rec'd $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #21555)
2710/23/2012 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
2810/24/2012 Rec'd 7 copies of AEB from CSD
2910/24/2012 Rec'd 6 copies of AEA from CSD
3011/01/2012 REPLY BRIEF
3111/01/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
3211/02/2012 Rec'd 7 copies of RYB from CSD
3311/13/2012 4th ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 11/09/12 (ENTRY NOS. 292-293)
3411/29/2012 APPEARANCES: Robert J. Schultz; Anna K. Schultz; Scott D. Jensen
3511/29/2012 ARGUED: Robert J. Schultz; Scott D. Jensen
3611/29/2012 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
3704/04/2013 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
3804/04/2013 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
3904/04/2013 Costs on appeal not taxed against either party
4004/05/2013 Judgment Sent to Parties
4104/16/2013 PETITION FOR REHEARING (PDF)
4204/16/2013 E-FILED BRIEF
4304/22/2013 Receive 7 copies of PER from CDS
4405/14/2013 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied
4506/25/2013 MANDATE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/31/2014