Divorce/Property Div./Alimony

Krueger v. Krueger , 2008 ND 90, 748 N.W.2d 671
A spousal support award must consider a disadvantaged spouse's needs and a supporting spouse's ability to pay.
Permanent spousal support is appropriate when an economically disadvantaged spouse cannot be equitably rehabilitated to make up for opportunities lost during the course of a marriage, while rehabilitative spousal support is appropriate when it is possible to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent economic status, or to equalize the burden of a divorce by increasing the disadvantaged spouse's earning capacity.
Voluntary retirement by a supporting spouse that results in a material change in circumstances may be a valid basis for modification of spousal support.
Waldie v. Waldie , 2008 ND 97, 748 N.W.2d 683
A district court's decision regarding redistribution of marital property and debt is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
A redistribution of marital property and debt is warranted when there is a noncompliance with a court order that results in a significant shift in equity.
Lynnes v. Lynnes , 2008 ND 71, 747 N.W.2d 93
The district court's valuation of property is a finding of fact which will be reversed on appeal only if it is clearly erroneous. When the district court's valuation is within the range of evidence provided by the parties, the district court's valuation will not be set aside, unless this Court has a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.
A relatively insignificant error in valuation of a marital asset will not, standing alone, constitute sufficient grounds for reversal of the judgment.
If substantial amount of debts are excluded from the marital estate, it is not clear that the district court would have reached the same result in allocating the assets and debts had it correctly included the debts as part of the marital estate before allocating the debts between the parties.
Hitz v. Hitz , 2008 ND 58, 746 N.W.2d 732
A trial court must start with a presumption that all property held by either party, whether held jointly or individually, is to be considered marital property. The trial court must then determine the total value of the marital estate in order to make an equitable division of property.
After a fair evaluation of the property is made, the entire marital estate must then be equitably divided between the parties under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
A trial court, having the opportunity to observe demeanor and credibility, is in a far better position than an appellate court in ascertaining the true facts regarding property value, and a marital property valuation within the range of the evidence presented to the district court is not clearly erroneous.
Overland v. Overland , 2008 ND 6, 744 N.W.2d 67
A district court's division of property does not need to be equal to be equitable, but any substantial disparity must be explained.
When awarding spousal support, a district court must consider the relevant factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. A court must also consider the needs of the spouse seeking support and of the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay.
Christian v. Christian , 2007 ND 196, 742 N.W.2d 819
Permanent spousal support is appropriate when the economically disadvantaged spouse cannot be equitably rehabilitated to make up for the opportunities and development she lost during the course of the marriage.
When the parties to a divorce have reached an agreement on all matters pertaining to division of their property, there is no reason for the district court to hear evidence of the value of marital property.
In deciding whether to award attorney fees in a divorce action, the district court must balance one party's needs against the other party's ability to pay.
Submission of an affidavit to support an award of attorney fees is not necessary when the award is supported by testimony and other documentary evidence received in an evidentiary hearing.
Evidence that is discoverable before trial does not qualify as newly discovered evidence.
A property settlement agreement that is unconscionable may be set aside.
Weigel v. Weigel , 2007 ND 110, 738 N.W.2d 905
Property division in a divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (7).
Stadheim v. Stadheim , 2007 ND 64, 734 N.W.2d 342
The amended divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Kostelecky v. Kostelecky , 2007 ND 63, 734 N.W.2d 342
Property division in a divorce is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Rothberg v. Rothberg , 2007 ND 24, 727 N.W.2d 771
A change in an obligor's financial circumstances that does not affect the obligor's ability to pay is not a "material" change in circumstances warranting a reduction in spousal support.
Holden v. Holden , 2007 ND 29, 728 N.W.2d 312
North Dakota law does not mandate a set formula or method to determine how marital property is to be divided after a divorce; rather, the property division is based on the particular circumstances of each case.
Property need not be liquidated for a distribution to be equitable.
Wold v. Wold , 2008 ND 14, 744 N.W.2d 541
Generally, in a divorce, a court's property valuations are not clearly erroneous if they are within the range of the evidence presented.
Under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1, a district court in a divorce case may require one party to pay spousal support to the other for any period of time.
Spousal support awards must be made in consideration of the disadvantaged spouse's needs and the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay, but it is not necessary for the court to determine a spouse is disadvantaged by the divorce to award spousal support to that spouse.
Property division and spousal support are interrelated and often must be considered together.
It is within the district court's discretion to order security for a spousal support obligation.
Donlin v. Donlin , 2007 ND 5, 725 N.W.2d 905
Property division need not be equal to be equitable, but a substantial disparity must be explained. A long-term marriage supports an equal distribution of property.
Property division and spousal support are interrelated and intertwined and often must be considered together. In making a spousal support determination, the district court must consider the relevant factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
Jangula v. Jangula , 2006 ND 206, 725 N.W.2d 588
A district court's property division in a divorce is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Ulsaker v. White , 2006 ND 133, 717 N.W.2d 567
All assets regardless of source, whether separately obtained or inherited property, are to be considered part of the marital estate.
A district court misapplies the law when it determines property individually held is not included in the marital estate.
A property division need not be equal, but a substantial disparity must be explained.
Questions of property division and spousal support ordinarily must be examined and dealt with together.
Kostelecky v. Kostelecky , 2006 ND 120, 714 N.W.2d 845
Property division and spousal support are interrelated and intertwined and often must be considered together. In making a spousal support determination, the district court must consider the relevant factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
Rehabilitative spousal support is awarded to equalize the burdens of divorce or to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent status by providing an opportunity for a disadvantaged spouse to seek education, training, or experience that will enable the spouse to become self-supporting.
Kramer v. Kramer , 2006 ND 64, 711 N.W.2d 164
A district court should ordinarily not order a distribution of marital property that is inconsistent with the parties' contract, but a court may set aside a property settlement agreement if the agreement is executed under mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, or if the agreement is unconscionable.
Jangula v. Jangula , 2005 ND 203, 706 N.W.2d 85
Once separate property, or property exempt from being included as marital property, is commingled, placed into a joint bank account, or placed in joint tenancy, the property no longer has any separate identity and therefore becomes marital property.
Pfau v. Pfau , 2005 ND 200, 709 N.W.2d 21
The district court denial of a motion for new trial and a motion for post-judgment relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Ebach v. Ebach , 2005 ND 123, 700 N.W.2d 684
Whether a supporting spouse's early retirement constitutes a material change of circumstances to justify a termination or reduction of spousal support depends on the totality of the circumstances.
Rhodes v. Rhodes , 2005 ND 38, 692 N.W.2d 157
A prenuptial agreement is a contract, and its interpretation is primarily a question of law for the court to decide.
Gibb v. Sepe , 2004 ND 227, 690 N.W.2d 230
A spousal support award resulting from the parties' stipulation should be modified by the trial court only upon a showing of a material change in circumstances.
The party advocating the modification bears the burden of proving a material change occurred.
An award of attorney fees is an abuse of discretion when the prevailing party failed to show need, inability to pay, how the fees were incurred, or that the appeal was frivolous.
Staley v. Staley , 2004 ND 195, 688 N.W.2d 182
Rehabilitative spousal support is appropriate when it is possible to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent economic status, or to equalize the burden of divorce by increasing the disadvantaged spouse's earning capacity.
Horner v. Horner , 2004 ND 165, 686 N.W.2d 131
Duration of a marriage is only one factor of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and is not controlling in a distribution of marital property.
A party's dissipation of marital assets is a particularly relevant factor in arriving at an equitable distribution of the property.
Periodic cash payments awarded without interest need to be discounted to present value in determining whether a property distribution is equitable.
Distributing farm assets to one spouse with an offsetting monetary award to the other spouse is an acceptable method of preserving the viability of a family farm.
Dietz v. Kautzman , 2004 ND 119, 681 N.W.2d 437
The 21-day safe harbor provision under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 can be waived by a party against whom sanctions are sought for bringing a frivolous claim, when the party continues to advance the claim rather than withdraw or appropriately correct it.
A trial court's decision to impose sanctions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 rests within the sound discretion of the court and it will not be overturned on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion.
Meyer v. Meyer , 2004 ND 89, 679 N.W.2d 273
A change in spousal support, which was initially awarded upon the parties' stipulation, should be made only with great reluctance by the trial court upon a showing of a material change in circumstances.
Findings of fact should be sufficiently stated so the reviewing court is able to understand the factual basis for the trial court's decision, particularly in view of our standards for modification of spousal support.
A case will be remanded if the reviewing court cannot discern the rationale for the result reached by the trial court.
Giese v. Giese , 2004 ND 58, 676 N.W.2d 794
Civil contempt requires a willful and inexcusable intent to violate a court order. The trial court's finding of contempt will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
A trial court may award attorney fees as part of the compensation to a complainant in contempt proceedings.
Wohlwend v. Wohlwend , 2004 ND 20, 676 N.W.2d 813
Property division in a divorce is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Binek v. Binek , 2004 ND 5, 673 N.W.2d 594
The enforceability of a premarital agreement entered into prior to the adoption of N.D.C.C. ch. 14-03.1 is governed by common law.
A premarital agreement is enforceable under the common law if it is fair, reasonable, equitable, and just; does not contravene public policy; and was fairly entered into.
An award of spousal support is not precluded by a premarital agreement that applies only to the couple's property in the form of a property distribution as a result of divorce.
Christianson v. Christianson , 2003 ND 186, 671 N.W.2d 801
No North Dakota statute or case law provides for the imputation of income in spousal support cases.
Equalization of income is not a goal or a measure of spousal support although it is a factor which may be considered.
Knodel v. Knodel , 2003 ND 176, 674 N.W.2d 21
Divorce judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Reineke v. Reineke , 2003 ND 167, 670 N.W.2d 841
The Ruff-Fischer guidelines apply to both property division and spousal support, which ordinarily must be considered together.
Both economic and noneconomic fault are proper factors for the trial court to consider in dividing marital property.
The appointment of a custody investigator or a guardian ad litem is committed to the trial court's discretion.
Kautzman v. Kautzman , 2003 ND 140, 668 N.W.2d 59
For an effective appeal on any proper issue, the matter must have been raised in the trial court, so the trial court could rule on it, and a failure to object to an irregularity at trial is a waiver of the issue.
A party making a constitutional claim must provide persuasive authority and reasoning.
N.D.C.C. 9-12-07, dealing with the application of performance by a debtor under several obligations to another, applies only if there is voluntary performance.
When a debtor, at the time of payment, does not indicate to which obligation a payment applies, the creditor may apply it to any obligation then due from the debtor.
McKechnie v. Berg , 2003 ND 136, 667 N.W.2d 628
Admitting incompetent evidence in a bench trial is not reversible error unless it induced an improper finding.
The law on partition of property controls the distribution of property accumulated by unmarried partners and cohabitants.
Although legal ownership of property is strong evidence of an intention to not share property, legal ownership is not dispositive when the person who is not the legal owner has financially contributed to the acquisition of the property.
Bladow v. Bladow , 2003 ND 123, 665 N.W.2d 724
The proceeds of a personal injury settlement received during the marriage are part of the marital estate, and their distribution is part of the equitable distribution of property in a divorce.
Cannaday v. Cannaday , 2003 ND 58, 659 N.W.2d 363
The rules for the division of property are the same in a separation action as in a divorce action, and the division must be an equitable one.
When the provisions of a separation judgment imply that the trial court intended the property division to be final, that judgment is binding upon the parties and it is improper for the court to subsequently alter the property division.
Larson v. Larson , 2002 ND 196, 653 N.W.2d 869
A motion to reconsider an order disposing of a time-tolling, post-trial motion does not extend the time to file a notice of appeal.
Walker v. Walker , 2002 ND 187, 653 N.W.2d 722
Use of the Bullock formula to distribute retirement pay is not mandatory if the overall distribution of marital property is equitable.
A property distribution may include offsetting monetary awards when it is impractical or unsound to liquidate essentially nonliquid assets.
In awarding spousal support, the trial court must balance the income and needs of the disadvantaged spouse against the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay support.
Under appropriate circumstances, termination of temporary spousal support payments may be conditioned upon the supporting spouse's retirement, when the disadvantaged spouse has been awarded a portion of the supporting spouse's monthly retirement benefits.
Giese v. Giese , 2002 ND 194, 653 N.W.2d 663
A party cannot demand a change of judge under N.D.C.C. 29-15-21 when the assigned judge has ruled upon any matter pertaining to an action or proceeding in which the demanding party was heard or had an opportunity to be heard.
In deciding whether to award attorney fees to a party in a divorce case, the court may consider whether one party's actions have unreasonably increased the time and effort spent on the dispute.
Hemmesch v. Bonebrake , 2002 ND 168, 655 N.W.2d 84
Property division, temporary spousal support award, and refusal to award attorney fees is summarily affirmed, as modified, under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Quamme v. Bellino , 2002 ND 159, 652 N.W.2d 360
When there has been an initial award of spousal support, the district court retains jurisdiction to modify the award at least as long as the spousal support continues.
The party seeking a change of spousal support bears the burden of showing a material change in circumstances warranting a modification.
Absent modifying language in the support award, the obligee is entitled to spousal support from the obligor's estate if the obligor predeceases the obligee.
Kautzman v. Kautzman , 2002 ND 118, 647 N.W.2d 684
A change of substance that contradicts the transcript of a deposition is impermissible unless it can plausibly be represented as the correction of an error in transcription.
Corbett v. Corbett , 2002 ND 103, 646 N.W.2d 677
There must be some factual basis in the record for the length of time spousal support is awarded, but a specific plan of rehabilitation is not required.
On questions of spousal support, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.
Eide v. Eide , 2002 ND 94, 647 N.W.2d 706
Order denying a motion for relief from judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Looney v. Looney , 2002 ND 87, 647 N.W.2d 706
A judgment enforcing an earlier divorce judgment between the parties is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Bettenhausen v. Bettenhausen , 2002 ND 88, 647 N.W.2d 706
The trial court's judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Marschner v. Marschner , 2002 ND 67, 642 N.W.2d 857
The burden is on the complaining party to demonstrate a trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.
Terry v. Terry , 2002 ND 2, 638 N.W.2d 11
A party seeking to set aside a judgment based upon a stipulation must show that, under the law of contracts, there is justification for setting aside the stipulation.
Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., which sets forth the grounds for vacating a judgment, is not to be used to relieve a party from free, calculated, and deliberate choices.
Bellefeuille v. Bellefeuille , 2001 ND 192, 636 N.W.2d 195
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for relief from judgment, when the motion was made twenty-one years after the judgment was filed.
A trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify rehabilitative spousal support after the scheduled payments are completed, unless the trial court retains jurisdiction to do so within the decree.
Sommer v. Sommer , 2001 ND 191, 636 N.W.2d 423
Permanent spousal support may be awarded when a marriage has been of long duration and the dependant spouse has health problems or is of such an age that adequate rehabilitation is unlikely.
Under some circumstances, voluntary retirement by a supporting spouse that results in a material change in circumstance may be a valid basis for modification of spousal support.
Toni v. Toni , 636 N.W.2d 396 (N.D. 2001)
Agreements by divorcing parties to divest the trial court of jurisdiction to modify the amount and term of spousal support, which are adopted and incorporated into the divorce decree, are enforceable.
McDowell v. McDowell , 2001 ND 176, 635 N.W.2d 139
Spousal support determinations must be made in light of the income and needs of the disadvantaged spouse and of the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay.
A parent's health problems are relevant in a custody decision if those problems might adversely affect the parent's ability to care for the child.
A court errs as a matter of law when it fails to comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines in determining an obligor's child support obligation.
Heinz v. Heinz , 2001 ND 147, 632 N.W.2d 443
A lengthy marriage supports an equal division of all marital assets.
Spousal support is appropriate for a disadvantaged spouse who has foregone opportunities or lost advantages as a consequence of the marriage and who has contributed during the marriage to the supporting spouse's increased earning capacity.
Spousal support payments must be included in computing monthly net income for child support purposes.
Fox v. Fox , 2001 ND 88, 626 N.W.2d 660
A choice between two permissible views of the evidence is not clearly erroneous when the trial court's findings are based either on physical or documentary evidence or inferences from other facts or on credibility determinations.
A court's valuation of marital property is dependent upon the evidence presented by the parties.
Kopp v. Kopp , 2001 ND 41, 622 N.W.2d 726
Rule 60(b)(vi), N.D.R.Civ.P., authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to provide relief from a judgment when the movant demonstrates it would be manifestly unjust to enforce the judgment.
Runge v. Runge , 2001 ND 39, 625 N.W.2d 264
Judgment valuing and distributing marital property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Schmitz v. Schmitz , 2001 ND 19, 622 N.W.2d 176
Spousal support payments may be modified only upon a showing of a material change in circumstances justifying the modification.
Marschner v. Marschner , 2001 ND 4, 621 N.W.2d 339
A spouse is disadvantaged who has foregone opportunities or lost advantages as a consequence of the marriage and who has contributed during the marriage to the supporting spouse's increased earning capacity. A disadvantaged spouse is not required to deplete a property distribution in order to live.
A valid consideration in awarding spousal support is balancing the burden created by divorce. A trial court cannot consider issues of property division and spousal support separately, in a vacuum, but must examine those issues together.
Reiser v. Reiser , 2001 ND 6, 621 N.W.2d 348
In dividing the marital estate, fault causing deterioration of the marriage is a relevant factor under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
In awarding attorney fees in a divorce proceeding, fault is only relevant to the extent one party has unreasonably escalated the fees.
Mondry v. Mondry , 2000 ND 215, 622 N.W.2d 432
Judgment valuing and distributing marital property and awarding attorney fees is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4).
Schumacher v. Schumacher , 2000 ND 195, 622 N.W.2d 432
Spousal support and child support order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Kautzman v. Kautzman , 2000 ND 190, 618 N.W.2d 500
When a party executes on a money judgment to secure a division of property, the debtor is not entitled to an exemption for life insurance policies or annuities.
A trial court may enforce an equitable lien by whatever means appropriate to do justice between the parties.
If a party cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting from an allegedly defective notice, there is no right to redress.
Kautzman v. Kautzman , 2000 ND 116, 611 N.W.2d 883
When the Supreme Court specifies a defect to be cured and remands for redetermination of an issue without specifying the procedure to be followed, the trial court need only rectify the defect in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court opinion and conformable to law and justice.
Emter v. Emter , 2000 ND 70, 617 N.W.2d 131
The trial court's property division and spousal support award upon remand from prior appeal was summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Pearson v. Pearson , 2000 ND 20, 606 N.W.2d 128
To eliminate spousal support based on the obligee's alleged common law marriage in another jurisdiction, the obligor must show the other jurisdiction recognizes the obligee's relationship as a valid marriage.
To reduce spousal support based on the obligee's cohabitation, the obligor must show a decrease in the obligee's need for support.
The nature of spousal support payments may be considered in determining whether there is a material change in circumstances justifying modification of support.
Weigel v. Weigel , 2000 ND 16, 604 N.W.2d 462
A spouse who remains at home and out of the workforce to maintain a marital residence, act as a homemaker, or provide child care has forgone opportunities and lost advantages that accrue from work experience and employment history.
Christianson v. Christianson , 1999 ND 206, 606 N.W.2d 137
Divorce judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Peterson v. Peterson , 1999 ND 191, 600 N.W.2d 851
A trial court's determinations on valuation and division of property are treated as findings of fact and will be reversed on appeal only if clearly erroneous. To make an equitable distribution of property, the trial court must include in the marital estate all of the parties' assets, regardless of source.
Sand v. Sand , 1999 ND 186, 606 N.W.2d 137
Divorce judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Brown v. Brown , 1999 ND 199, 600 N.W.2d 869
An award of custody of a minor child is not clearly erroneous when the district court has considered all of the "best interests of the child" factors in making its custody determination.
The district court's division of marital property is not clearly erroneous simply because the district court did not order the marital home to be sold.
The district court's denial of an award of spousal support is not clearly erroneous when the district court made findings on all of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
A district court's decision regarding attorney's fees will not be overruled unless the complaining party establishes an abuse of discretion.
Ketelsen v. Ketelsen , 1999 ND 148, 598 N.W.2d 185
A trial court cannot consider issues of property division and spousal support separately, in a vacuum, but must examine those issues together.
A trial court's modification of spousal support based upon changed circumstances is a finding of fact which will not be set aside on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.
Emter v. Emter , 1999 ND 102, 595 N.W.2d 16
An adequate factual basis on the valuation of property is necessary for an appellate court to understand whether the trial court's distribution of marital property is clearly erroneous.
Property division and spousal support should be considered together.
Schoenwald v. Schoenwald , 1999 ND 93, 593 N.W.2d 350
"Tier II" Railroad Retirement benefits are divisible property in a divorce.
"Tier I" Railroad Retirement benefits are not divisible property in a divorce.
Krenz v. Krenz , 1999 ND 83, 598 N.W.2d 860
Divorce judgment dividing marital property and debts summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Fox v. Fox , 1999 ND 68, 592 N.W.2d 541
Future disability payments are not marital property subject to equitable distribution, but are income which the court may consider to determine the ultimate economic circumstances of the parties in a divorce.
Trusts are includable as marital property subject to equitable distribution.
In distributing marital property, a court should try to disentangle the parties' financial affairs to reduce further conflict, litigation, and rancor between them.
A spouse is not required to deplete a property distribution in order to live.
Jorgenson, f/k/a Ratajczak v. Ratajczak , 1999 ND 65, 592 N.W.2d 527
If a party asks Supreme Court for attorney fees incurred for appeal of divorce decree and is advised to ask trial court for those fees, the action is pending under N.D.C.C. 14-05-23 and the party has a reasonable time to request those fees.
Under N.D.C.C. 14-05-23, a trial court in a pending divorce proceeding may award appellate attorney fees based upon the parties' needs and ability to pay.
Whitmire v. Whitmire , 1999 ND 56, 591 N.W.2d 126
A court cannot impute income from an obligor's homestead in calculating income for child support purposes.
An award of attorney fees must generally be supported by evidence upon which the court can determine the requested fees are reasonable and legitimate.
Kjonaas v. Kjonaas , 1999 ND 50, 590 N.W.2d 440
The trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance when a party failed to supplement discovery until the day before trial, thereby denying the opposing party a fair opportunity to prepare for trial.
Dethloff v. Dethloff , 1999 ND 18, 592 N.W.2d 923
Second reinstated judgment of divorce summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Weber v. Weber , 1999 ND 11, 589 N.W.2d 358
A property settlement agreement will be upheld if entered into freely and knowingly, without fraud, duress, menace or undue influence, or a genuine mistake of fact or law, and it is not unconscionable.
Domres v. Domres , 1998 ND 217, 587 N.W.2d 146
A motion to dismiss an appeal must be granted when the appeal is untimely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a) because the notice of appeal was not filed within sixty days of actual notice of entry of judgment demonstrated on the record.
Schmitz v. Schmitz , 1998 ND 203, 586 N.W.2d 490
For purposes of modifying spousal support, a contemplated change is one taken into consideration by the district court when fashioning the original decree.
The inability of ex-spouse to reach maximum rehabilitation may be a changed circumstance warranting a modification of spousal support.
Schmalle v. Schmalle , 1998 ND 201, 586 N.W.2d 677
A change in custody and resulting child support obligation is not a material change in circumstances justifying an award of spousal support to the child support obligr.
When an employee spouse retires, a trial court may clarify and construe a division of retirement benefits in a prior divorce decree to implement a Bullock formula for allocation of the benefts.
Under 11 U.S.C. 523(15), a debt arising from a division of marital property is discharged in bankruptcy unless the non-debtor spouse brings an adversarial proceeding in bankruptcy court to have the debt declared nondischargeable.
Kautzman v. Kautzman , 1998 ND 192, 585 N.W.2d 561
When parties live together and then marry, it is appropriate for the court to consider all of their time together in dividing the marital estate.
The principal factors for consideration in awarding attorney fees in a divorce action are the parties' needs and ability to pay. The trial court may also consider whether one party's actions unreasonably increased the time spent on the dispute.
Nelson v. Nelson , 1998 ND 176, 584 N.W.2d 527
In dividing property of a divorcing couple who had remarried three months after their first divorce, the trial court should consider the totality of the couple's relationship.
Questions of property division and spousal support should be examined together, especially where there is a large difference in earning power between the spouses.
LaRocque v. LaRocque , 1998 ND 143, 582 N.W.2d 645
The filing of a timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional.
The party whose attorney serves by mail notice of entry of judgment upon the opposing party's attorney is not entitled to a three-day extension to file her notice of appeal from the judgment.
The 60-day period for filing a timely notice of appeal commences for the prevailing party when her attorney serves the notice of entry of judgment upon the opposing party.
Nastrom v. Nastrom , 1998 ND 142, 581 N.W.2d 919
A district court has broad discretion in setting the scope of discovery, and will not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion.
A district court does not abuse its discretion when there is a rational reason for entry of a protective order.
Gierke v. Gierke , 1998 ND 100, 578 N.W.2d 522
Absent service of notice of entry of a judgment or an order, the time for appeal begins to run when the appellant has actual knowledge of entry of the judgment or order evidenced by some affirmative action by the appellant in the record.
The failure to require a spousal support obligor to provide security for a spousal support obligation may be an abuse of discretion.
Young v. Young , 1998 ND 83, 578 N.W.2d 111
In making an equitable division of the marital estate the trial court must consider all property, regardless of its source and regardless of whether it was premarital property or property accumulated during the marriage. The property division need not be equal to be equitable, but the trial court must explain any substantial disparity.
The trial court's findings do not adequately explain the substantial disparity in property division resulting, in part, from the court's award of premarital property to each spouse bringing that property into the marriage.
Nastrom v. Nastrom , 1998 ND 75, 576 N.W.2d 215
Under NDRAppP 4(a), a 30-day extension of time to file an appeal may be granted at the discretion of the trial court upon a showing of excusable neglect.
Evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstances is needed to excuse a failure to file a timely notice of appeal.
The time for filing an appeal is jurisdictional and, without jurisdiction, this court must dismiss an appeal.
Dethloff v. Dethloff , 1998 ND 45, 574 N.W.2d 867
Entry of a default divorce judgment dividing property is an appropriate exercise of a trial court's inherent power to sanction where the trial court found the defendant had used delay and evasiveness as an intentional litigation strategy.
Sanctions must be reasonably proportionate to the procedural misconduct.
In a default divorce, a trial court must, absent an agreed settlement, require proof of the value of the marital estate and explain why the division is equitable.
Linrud v. Linrud , 1998 ND 55, 574 N.W.2d 875
Where appellant failed to present evidence showing funds were unaccounted for or inappropriately spent, the trial court's findings that marital assets were adequately accounted for were not clearly erroneous.
Where appellant failed to present evidence showing how the trial court could make an equal division of marital property and keep the farming operation intact, the trial court's marital property division was not clearly erroneous.
Trial court may equalize parties' incomes in its division of property.
Phantom tax consequences are not a relevant basis on which to divide marital property.
Vetter v. Vetter , 1997 ND 220, 575 N.W.2d 224
Divorce judgment dividing marital property summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
Gibbon v. Gibbon , 1997 ND 210, 569 N.W.2d 707
In a divorce action, the trial court did not clearly err in structuring the division of the parties' marital estate.
The Supreme Court rejected the husband's request to order liquidation of the parties' assets.
Christmann v. Christmann , 1997 ND 209, 570 N.W.2d 221
In dividing marital property, the trial court does not err in refusing to consider a ten-year-old property agreement executed by the parties to reconcile their marriage, which neither stated it was a final adjustment of all property nor that the parties would be bound by the agreement in future divorce proceedings.
Cermak v. Cermak , 1997 ND 187, 569 N.W.2d 280
A recipient spouse's unmarried cohabitation is not a remarriage and is insufficient, alone, to terminate a permanent spousal support obligation.
The district court's finding that a reduction of spousal support is not warranted because nothing has changed since the original decree is not clearly erroneous.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney's fees.
Glander v. Glander , 1997 ND 192, 569 N.W.2d 262
Decreed equal division of property between former spouses was not erroneous where the property came from comparable inheritences from each spouse's family and had comparably been used for household expenses throughout a forty-year marriage.
Decreed spousal support was satisfactorily explained by trial court's findings that a spouse was disadvantaged, could not be rehabilitated, and was in need of support equivalent to half of the spouse's current income.
Fisher v. Fisher , 1997 ND 176, 568 N.W.2d 728
A trial court ordinarily should not apply a discount to a minority stock interest when it determines "fair value" for a minority shareholder under the North Dakota Business Corporation Act. In distributing marital property, a trial court should disentangle ownership of a corporation by contentious spouses, if possible.
Baker v. Baker , 1997 ND 135, 566 N.W.2d 806
The trial court's finding that a former husband was "cohabiting in an informal marital relationship," thereby ending the former wife's spousal support obligation under the divorce decree, was not clearly erroneous.
Ratajczak v. Ratajczak , 1997 ND 122, 565 N.W.2d 491
A letter written to the district court under Rule 7.1(b)(1), N.D.R.O.C., is part of the record on appeal. Under the facts of this case, wife did not waive right to spousal support by not specifying in the interrogatories the amount of spousal support she would require. Marital misconduct is only one of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and does not in and of itself automatically preclude an award of spousal support as a matter of law. "Condonation" under N.D.C.C. ch. 14-05 does not prevent relevant evidence of spousal abuse from being admitted to determine spousal support.
Zuger v. Zuger , 1997 ND 97, 563 N.W.2d 804
Property accumulated after spouses have separated, but while the marital status still exists, is part of the marital estate. Permanent spousal support is appropriate for a substantial disparity between the earning abilities of the spouses. The trial court's placement of joint custody with divorced parents is clearly erroneous, where one parent has committed domestic violence and the statutory presumption against placing custody with a perpetrator of domestic violence has not been overcome. To overcome the statutory presumption, the abusive parent must show by clear and convincing evidence why the best interests of the children require the abusive parent to participate in or have custody.
Dakutak v. Dakutak , 1997 ND 76, 562 N.W.2d 750
The Supreme Court reviews de novo one trial court's interpretation of another trial court's judgment or decree. Under a prior divorce decree, the wife was personally liable for only that part of a credit union debt not satisfied by the husband's Corvette, which was given as collateral for the debt.
Sumra v. Sumra , 1997 ND 62, 561 N.W.2d 290
A trial court reviewing a motion to change the residence of a child to another country must apply the four factor analysis enunciated in Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61.
Fair v. Fair , 1997 ND 45, 565 N.W.2d 505
Divorce judgment dividing marital property summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
Orgaard v. Orgaard , 1997 ND 34, 559 N.W.2d 546
Holding the trial court's award of spousal support is not clearly erroneous in view of spouse's monthly expenses and limited potential for future employment.
Caldwell v. Caldwell , 562 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 1996)
District court's divorce decree ordering equal division of the marital property summarily affirmed under Rule 35.1(a)(2), N.D.R.App.P.
Wald v. Wald , 556 N.W.2d 291 (N.D. 1996)
A trial court should consider tax consequences in dividing marital property and setting spousal support only when it is properly informed what those consequences will be.
The trial court may refuse to award spouse, as an unmodifiable property distribution, 50 percent of stock distributions which include the other spouse's salary from employment with the company.
Trial court should consider ability to pay, and recipient's needs when allowing property distribution over time.
In awarding spousal support, the trial court should consider supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay, and maintenance of relative standards of living.
Kaiser v. Kaiser , 555 N.W.2d 585 (N.D. 1996)
In divorce case, valuation of oil company stock and distribution of property were not clearly erroneous.
Neubauer v. Neubauer , 552 N.W.2d 793 (N.D. 1996)
A motion to clarify an ambiguous provision of a property division in an original divorce decree may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. The same trial judge's clarification of an ambiguous provision of a property division was not clearly erroneous.
Grinaker v. Grinaker , 553 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1996)
Although the procedure employed by the trial court in twice amending its judgment was unusual, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this procedure did not deny the plaintiff a fair trial and in denying her motion for a new trial or for relief from the judgment.
Property brought into the marriage by one party, and separate property acquired by gift, inheritance, or otherwise, must be included in the marital estate and is subject to distribution.
The trial court did not err in valuing the parties' property as of the date of trial, rather than the date of distribution.
Weber v. Weber , 548 N.W.2d 781 (N.D. 1996)
Wheeler v. Wheeler , 548 N.W.2d 27 (N.D. 1996)
Fisher v. Fisher , 546 N.W.2d 354 (N.D. 1996)
Johnson v. Johnson , 544 N.W.2d 519 (N.D. 1996)
Buzick v. Buzick , 542 N.W.2d 756 (N.D. 1996)
Volson v. Volson , 542 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 1996)
Krise v. Krise , 544 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1996)
Heggen v. Heggen , 541 N.W.2d 463 (N.D. 1996)
Estate of Thorson , 541 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1996)
Bell v. Bell , 540 N.W.2d 602 (N.D. 1995)
Zarr v. Zarr , 544 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1995)
Okeson v. Okeson , 544 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1995)
Thyberg v. Thyberg , 544 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1995)
Cermak v. Cermak , 544 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1995)
Soli v. Soli , 534 N.W.2d 21 (N.D. 1995)
Theis v. Theis , 534 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 1995)
Buzick v. Buzick , 533 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 1995)
Bakes v. Bakes , 532 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 1995)
Wildfang v. Wildfang , 537 N.W.2d 365 (N.D. 1995)
Berg v. Berg , 530 N.W.2d 341 (N.D. 1995)
Gronland v. Gronland , 527 N.W.2d 250 (N.D. 1995)
Hanson v. Hanson , 537 N.W.2d 365 (N.D. 1995)
Neubauer v. Neubauer , 524 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 1994)
Vitko v. Vitko , 524 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 1994)
Morehouse v. Morehouse , 525 N.W.2d 250 (N.D. 1994)
van Oosting v. van Oosting , 521 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1994)
Clooten v. Clooten , 520 N.W.2d 843 (N.D. 1994)
Welder v. Welder , 520 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 1994)
Lill v. Lill , 520 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 1994)
Selland v. Selland v. Bard , 519 N.W.2d 21 (N.D. 1994)
Wiege v. Wiege , 518 N.W.2d 708 (N.D. 1994)
Moen v. Moen , 519 N.W.2d 10 (N.D. 1994)
Rudh v. Rudh , 517 N.W.2d 632 (N.D. 1994)
Murdoff v. Murdoff , 517 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 1994)
Gaulrapp v. Gaulrapp , 510 N.W.2d 620 (N.D. 1994)
Heley v. Heley , 506 N.W.2d 715 (N.D. 1993)
Anderson v. Anderson , 504 N.W.2d 569 (N.D. 1993)
Selland v. Selland , 503 N.W.2d 242 (N.D. 1993)
Moderow v. Moderow , 503 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1993)
Stoller v. Stoller , 503 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1993)
Nygard v. Nygard , 503 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1993)
Weidner v. Fradet , 503 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1993)
Culver v. Culver , 497 N.W.2d 431 (N.D. 1993)
Selland v. Selland , 494 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1992)
Sauer v. Hayes-Sauer , 493 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 1992)
McAdoo v. McAdoo , 492 N.W.2d 66 (N.D. 1992)
Heggen v. Heggen , 488 N.W.2d 627 (N.D. 1992)
Sateren v. Sateren , 488 N.W.2d 631 (N.D. 1992)
Halvorson v. Halvorson , 482 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 1992)
Severson v. Severson , 482 N.W.2d 594 (N.D. 1992)
Walker v. Walker , 485 N.W.2d 353 (N.D. 1992)
Wahlberg v. Wahlberg , 479 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1992)
Huffman v. Huffman , 477 N.W.2d 594 (N.D. 1991)
Kaiser v. Kaiser , 474 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1991)
Spooner v. Spooner , 471 N.W.2d 487 (N.D. 1991)
McCusker v. LaBrasca , 472 N.W.2d 760 (N.D. 1991)
Ness v. Ness , 467 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 1991)
Gross v. Gross , 466 N.W.2d 154 (N.D. 1991)
Anderson v. Anderson , 468 N.W.2d 137 (N.D. 1991)
Pfliger v. Pfliger , 461 N.W.2d 432 (N.D. 1990)
Kitzmann v. Kitzmann , 459 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1990)
Davis v. Davis , 458 N.W.2d 309 (N.D. 1990)
Addy v. Addy , 456 N.W.2d 506 (N.D. 1990)
Lucy v. Lucy , 456 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 1990)
Ramsdell v. Ramsdell , 454 N.W.2d 522 (N.D. 1990)
Heggen v. Heggen , 452 N.W.2d 96 (N.D. 1990)
Schaff v. Schaff , 449 N.W.2d 570 (N.D. 1989)
Hecker v. Hecker , 448 N.W.2d 207 (N.D. 1989)
Olson v. Olson , 445 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1989)
Fossen v. Fossen , 442 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 1989)
Redlin v. Redlin , 436 N.W.2d 5 (N.D. 1989)
Volk v. Volk , 435 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1989)
Dick v. Dick , 434 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 1989)
White v. White , 434 N.W.2d 361 (N.D. 1989)
Abelmann v. Abelmann , 433 N.W.2d 554 (N.D. 1988)
Selleys v. Selleys , 430 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1988)
Behm v. Behm , 427 N.W.2d 332 (N.D. 1988)
Volk v. Volk , 404 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 1987)
Morales v. Morales , 402 N.W.2d 322 (N.D. 1987)
Bard v. Bard , 403 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 1987)
Christensen v. Christensen , 397 N.W.2d 456 (N.D. 1986)
Patten v. Green , 397 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 1986)
Persons v. Persons , 396 N.W.2d 744 (N.D. 1986)
Gillan v. Saffell , 395 N.W.2d 148 (N.D. 1986)
DeVore v. DeVore , 393 N.W.2d 739 (N.D. 1986)
Hill v. Hill , 392 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1986)
Anderson v. Anderson , 390 N.W.2d 554 (N.D. 1986)
Wolfe v. Wolfe , 391 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 1986)
Watne v. Watne , 391 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 1986)
Stroschein v. Stroschein , 390 N.W.2d 547 (N.D. 1986)
Hugret v. Hugret , 386 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 1986)
Erickson v. Erickson , 384 N.W.2d 659 (N.D. 1986)
Prock v. Prock , 380 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 1986)
Rustand v. Rustand , 379 N.W.2d 806 (N.D. 1986)
Bard v. Bard , 380 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 1986)
Routledge v. Routledge , 377 N.W.2d 542 (N.D. 1985)
Redmann v. Redmann , 376 N.W.2d 803 (N.D. 1985)
Blowers v. Blowers , 377 N.W.2d 127 (N.D. 1985)
Volk v. Volk , 376 N.W.2d 16 (N.D. 1985)
Bullock v. Bullock , 376 N.W.2d 30 (N.D. 1985)
Brodersen v. Brodersen , 374 N.W.2d 76 (N.D. 1985)
Pankow v. Pankow , 371 N.W.2d 153 (N.D. 1985)
Wastvedt v. Wastvedt , 371 N.W.2d 142 (N.D. 1985)
Hedin v. Hedin , 370 N.W.2d 544 (N.D. 1985)
Anderson v. Anderson , 368 N.W.2d 566 (N.D. 1985)
Kraft v. Kraft , 366 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1985)
Cook v. Cook , 364 N.W.2d 74 (N.D. 1985)
Burrell v. Burrell , 359 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1985)
Wikstrom v. Wikstrom , 359 N.W.2d 821 (N.D. 1984)
DeLorey v. DeLorey , 357 N.W.2d 488 (N.D. 1984)
Bauer v. Bauer , 356 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 1984)
Oviatt v. Oviatt , 355 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 1984)
Lipp v. Lipp , 355 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 1984)
Bullock v. Bullock , 354 N.W.2d 904 (N.D. 1984)
Lentz v. Lentz , 353 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1984)
Fischer v. Fischer , 349 N.W.2d 22 (N.D. 1984)
Urlaub v. Urlaub , 348 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 1984)
Seablom v. Seablom , 348 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 1984)
Pankow v. Pankow , 347 N.W.2d 566 (N.D. 1984)
Schnell v. Schnell , 346 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 1984)
Glass v. Glass , 344 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 1984)
Gegelman v. Gegelman , 342 N.W.2d 404 (N.D. 1984)
VanRosendale v. VanRosendale , 342 N.W.2d 209 (N.D. 1983)
Graves v. Graves , 340 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1983)
Boschee v. Boschee , 340 N.W.2d 685 (N.D. 1983)
Winter v. Winter , 338 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1983)
Fleck v. Fleck , 337 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1983)
VanRosendale v. VanRosendale , 333 N.W.2d 790 (N.D. 1983)
Tuff v. Tuff , 333 N.W.2d 421 (N.D. 1983)
Geier v. Geier , 332 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 1983)
Clark v. Clark , 331 N.W.2d 277 (N.D. 1983)
Dvorak v. Dvorak , 329 N.W.2d 868 (N.D. 1983)
Martian v. Martian , 328 N.W.2d 844 (N.D. 1983)
Smith v. Smith , 326 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 1982)
Bartholomew v. Bartholomew , 326 N.W.2d 715 (N.D. 1982)
Cumber v. Cumber , 326 N.W.2d 194 (N.D. 1982)
Clement v. Clement , 325 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 1982)
Mees v. Mees , 325 N.W.2d 207 (N.D. 1982)
Schmidt v. Schmidt , 325 N.W.2d 230 (N.D. 1982)
Nyhof v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau , 325 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 1982)
Briese v. Briese , 325 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 1982)
Rust v. Rust , 321 N.W.2d 504 (N.D. 1982)
Gooselaw v. Gooselaw , 320 N.W.2d 490 (N.D. 1982)
Herrick v. Herrick , 316 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 1982)
Hille v. Hille , 313 N.W.2d 783 (N.D. 1981)
Peterson v. Peterson , 313 N.W.2d 743 (N.D. 1981)
McKenzie County School Dt. No. 1 v. Bd. of Public School Education , 311 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1981)
Kastrow v. Kastrow , 310 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1981)
Klitzke v. Klitzke , 308 N.W.2d 385 (N.D. 1981)
Hesch v. Hesch , 308 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 1981)
Webber v. Webber , 308 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1981)
Martin v. Martin , 307 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 1981)
Lizakowski v. Lizakowski , 307 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1981)
Martin v. Martin , 304 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 1981)
Svetenko v. Svetenko , 306 N.W.2d 607 (N.D. 1981)
Suko v. Suko , 304 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1981)
Midboe v. Midboe , 303 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1981)
Williams v. Williams , 302 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 1981)
Eberhart v. Eberhart , 301 N.W.2d 137 (N.D. 1981)
Jochim v. Jochim , 306 N.W.2d 196 (N.D. 1980)
Jochim v. Jochim , 299 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 1980)
Sanford v. Sanford , 301 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 1980)
Sanford v. Sanford , 295 N.W.2d 139 (N.D. 1980)
Geigle v. Geigle , 294 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1980)
Schuchard v. Schuchard , 293 N.W.2d 428 (N.D. 1980)
Fries v. Fries , 288 N.W.2d 77 (N.D. 1980)
Bosma v. Bosma , 287 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 1979)
Jostad v. Jostad , 285 N.W.2d 583 (N.D. 1979)
Harwood v. Harwood , 283 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1979)
Hultberg v. Hultberg , 281 N.W.2d 569 (N.D. 1979)
Rudel v. Rudel , 279 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1979)
Hoge v. Hoge , 281 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 1979)
Nastrom v. Nastrom , 284 N.W.2d 576 (N.D. 1979)
Nastrom v. Nastrom , 276 N.W.2d 130 (N.D. 1979)
Mattis v. Mattis , 274 N.W.2d 201 (N.D. 1979)
Keig v. Keig , 270 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1978)
Nastrom v. Nastrom , 262 N.W.2d 487 (N.D. 1978)
Becker v. Becker , 262 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 1978)
Geigle v. Geigle , 264 N.W.2d 888 (N.D. 1977)
Geigle v. Geigle , 261 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1977)
Hultberg v. Hultberg , 259 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 1977)
Haberstroh v. Haberstroh , 258 N.W.2d 669 (N.D. 1977)
Haugeberg v. Haugeberg , 258 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 1977)
Renz v. Renz , 256 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 1977)
Schmidt v. Schmidt , 254 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 1977)
Rambel v. Rambel , 248 N.W.2d 856 (N.D. 1977)
Fine v. Fine , 248 N.W.2d 838 (N.D. 1976)
Bingert v. Bingert , 247 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 1976)
Schumacher v. Schumacher , 242 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1976)
Bellon v. Bellon , 237 N.W.2d 163 (N.D. 1975)
Larson v. Larson , 234 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 1975)
Rummel v. Rummel , 234 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1975)
Grant v. Grant , 226 N.W.2d 358 (N.D. 1975)
Lawrence v. Lawrence , 217 N.W.2d 792 (N.D. 1974)
Bellon v. Bellon , 213 N.W.2d 376 (N.D. 1973)
Johnson v. Johnson , 211 N.W.2d 759 (N.D. 1973)
Novlesky v. Novlesky , 206 N.W.2d 865 (N.D. 1973)
Bosch v. Bosch , 197 N.W.2d 673 (N.D. 1972)
Steele v. Steele , 189 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 1971)
Sabot v. Sabot , 187 N.W.2d 59 (N.D. 1971)
Wiedrich v. Wiedrich , 179 N.W.2d 728 (N.D. 1970)
Obrigewitch v. Obrigewitch , 171 N.W.2d 130 (N.D. 1969)
Kack v. Kack , 169 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1969)
Keller v. Keller , 163 N.W.2d 82 (N.D. 1968)
Rohde v. Rohde , 154 N.W.2d 385 (N.D. 1967)
Nugent v. Nugent , 152 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1967)
Johnson v. Davis , 140 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 1966)
Fischer v. Fischer , 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1966)
Bankers v. Bankers , 139 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1965)
Bolt v. Bolt , 134 N.W.2d 506 (N.D. 1965)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/23/2008