Varty v. Varty
- Thomas D. Varty, Plaintiff and Appellant
Kathleen A. Varty, Defendant and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY
- Appeal From
Case No. 2011-DM-00565
Northwest Judicial District, Williams County
Joshua B. Rustad
Parties' Statement of Issues
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by considering Kathleen’s untimely filed Reply Brief.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by granting Kathleen’s untimely request for oral arguments.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in finding that it was unconscionable that Thomas should exclusively enjoy the benefits from the phantom stock rights the accrued during the marriage.
4. Whether it was clearly erroneous for the District Court to Order Thomas to pay to Kathleen for one-half of the next proceeds from the phantom stock.
5. Whether the District Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in not setting aside the entire 2011 Judgment, save for the declaration of divorce.
Whether the District Court erred in ordering Thomas Varty to pay Kathleen Varty for 1/2 of the proceeds from the phantom stock accumulated during the marriage that were not previously disclosed to Kathleen.
Thomas Varty appeals after he was ordered to pay Kathleen Varty $23,714.62.
Kathleen and Thomas Varty divorced in 2011. In December 2018, Kathleen Varty requested relief from the divorce judgment. She alleged that during the marriage Thomas Varty obtained shares in a phantom stock plan from a former employer. She claimed she was entitled to one-half of a $72,400 payment relating to the stock received by Thomas Varty in February 2016. Thomas Varty opposed the motion, arguing the phantom stock had no value on the date of the divorce and did not become vested until after the divorce. After a hearing, the district court awarded Kathleen Varty $23,714.62, one-half of the net proceeds received by Thomas Varty.
On appeal, Thomas Varty argues the district court erred in ordering the payment to Kathleen Varty.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||12/09/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 12/09/2019|
|2||12/09/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 12/18/2019|
|3||12/16/2019||Received $125 filing fee|
|4||12/18/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|5||12/18/2019||Notice served on Thomas J. Corcoran and H. Malcolm Pippin|
|6||01/08/2020||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 7, 2020(ENTRY NOS. 1-150)(Not Rec'd - Deleted items 6,7,90)|
|7||02/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2019|
|8||02/10/2020||CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (9/16/2019)|
|9||02/27/2020||1ST ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2020 (ENTRY NOS. 151-154)|
|10||03/18/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|11||03/18/2020||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 04/20/2020|
|14||04/21/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections ATA|
|15||04/22/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of ATB & ATA from CSD|
|16||04/27/2020||Rec'd fee overpage limit ATA (receipt #27575)|
|17||05/13/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF|
|18||05/14/2020||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 06/04/2020|
|19||05/21/2020||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|21||06/04/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|22||06/04/2020||Rec'd non-substantice corrections to AEB|
|23||06/08/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of AEB back from Central Duplicating|
|25||06/16/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating|
|26||06/30/2020||APPEARANCES: H. Malcolm Pippin; Appellant wavied under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(1)(c)|
|27||06/30/2020||ARGUED: H. Malcolm Pippin; Appellant wavied under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(1)(c)|
|28||06/30/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|