Berdahl v. Berdahl
Decision Date | 08 July 2022 |
Docket Number | 20210320 |
Citation | 977 N.W.2d 294 |
Parties | Cody BERDAHL, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Joleen BERDAHL, Defendant and Appellee |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
977 N.W.2d 294
Cody BERDAHL, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Joleen BERDAHL, Defendant and Appellee
No. 20210320
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
FILED JULY 7, 2022
Corrected Opinion Filed July 8, 2022
Elizabeth A. Elsberry, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.
Harry M. Pippin, Williston, ND, for defendant and appellee.
McEvers, Justice.
I
[¶2] Cody Berdahl and Joleen Berdahl were married in 1997. The parties separated on August 1, 2019, and Cody Berdahl sued for divorce in November 2019. A two-day trial was held in July 2021. At the time of trial, Cody Berdahl was 50 years of age and Joleen Berdahl was 49. They lived in Watford City, North Dakota. Cody Berdahl was part owner of Dirty Birds, an oilfield service company. As part owner, he received work-related benefits including a phone, a vehicle, and health insurance. Joleen Berdahl worked at Dirty Birds as its bookkeeper from 2011 until fall 2019. At trial, she admitted she failed to timely remit payroll taxes to the Internal Revenue Service for the business. Joleen Berdahl had a high school education and eighteen years of bookkeeping experience. After the parties separated, she worked for the McKenzie County School District in a seasonal aide position.
[¶3]
[977 N.W.2d 298
The district court heard testimony from both parties regarding the accumulated assets and debts and the conduct attributing to the breakdown of this long-term marriage. Both parties drank alcohol throughout the marriage. Joleen Berdahl's alcohol consumption became problematic, resulting in her seeking and successfully completing outpatient alcohol treatment.
II
[¶5] Cody Berdahl argues the district court erred in distributing the marital property by finding Dirty Birds’ accounts receivable had a value of $100,000, by failing to properly consider Joleen Berdahl's conduct, by including valuations for property acquired post-separation in the marital estate, and by failing to require Joleen Berdahl to reimburse him for payment of post-separation bills.
[¶6] When granting a divorce, a district court is required to value the parties’ property and debts and "make an equitable distribution." N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1) (2017).1 This Court's standard of review for a district court's marital property distribution is well established:
This Court reviews a district court's distribution of marital property as a finding of fact, and will not reverse unless the findings are clearly erroneous. "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, after reviewing all the evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings, and the district court's factual findings are presumptively correct. Valuations of marital property within the range of the evidence presented are not clearly erroneous. A choice between two permissible views of the evidence is not clearly erroneous if the district court's findings are based either on physical or documentary evidence, or inferences from other facts, or on credibility determinations.
Holm v. Holm , 2017 ND 96, ¶ 4, 893 N.W.2d 492 (internal citations omitted).
[977 N.W.2d 299
[¶7] In making its distribution, the district court considers the Ruff-Fischer factors, which include:
The respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the duration of the marriage and conduct of the parties during the marriage, their station in life, the circumstances and necessities of each, their health and physical condition, their financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time, its value at the time, its income-producing capacity, if any, whether accumulated before or after the marriage, and such other matters as may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaspari v. Kaspari
... ... The court may modify its spousal support orders. An analysis of the Ruff-Fischer factors is also required. Berdahl v. Berdahl , 2022 ND 136, 7, 977 N.W.2d 294. The factors include: The respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the duration of the ... ...
-
Trosen v. Trosen
... ... [42] The district court's decision to award attorney's fees is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. 982 N.W.2d 539 Berdahl v. Berdahl , 2022 ND 136, 29, 977 N.W.2d 294. A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, ... ...
-
Kaspari v. Kaspari
... ... The court may modify its spousal support ... An ... analysis of the Ruff-Fischer factors is also ... required. Berdahl v. Berdahl , 2022 ND 136, ¶ 7, ... 977 N.W.2d 294. The factors include: ... The respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, ... the ... ...
-
Buchholz v. Buchholz
... ... ¶ 13, 717 N.W.2d 567. Valuations of marital property are ... findings of fact and will not be reversed unless clearly ... erroneous. Berdahl v. Berdahl , 2022 ND 136, ¶ ... 9, 977 N.W.2d 294. "A court's valuations of marital ... property are not clearly erroneous if they are within ... ...