Berg v. Berg
Decision Date | 22 March 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 20170336,20170336 |
Citation | 908 N.W.2d 705 |
Parties | Darcy R. BERG, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Ricky B. BERG, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Ward K. Johnson III (argued), Grand Forks, ND, and Jonathan F. Christensen (appeared), Sarasota, FL, for plaintiff and appellee.
Sarah W. Gereszek (argued), Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Ricky Berg appeals from a district court judgment dividing his and Darcy Berg’s marital estate and awarding Darcy Berg spousal support. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
[¶2] Ricky and Darcy Berg married in 1984 and separated in January 2016. The district court held a trial in June 2017 to determine the distribution of marital property and spousal support. At trial, both parties testified about their marital property, marital debts, income, and expenses. Ricky Berg was represented by counsel, and Darcy Berg represented herself at trial.
[¶3] Ricky Berg was 54 years old and Darcy Berg was 52 years old at the time of the trial. The parties were married for 32 years. In considering the Ruff - Fischer factors, the district court concluded Ricky Berg had a higher earning ability than Darcy Berg, who said she was unable to work because of anxiety, depression, alcoholism, and chronic pain issues. The district court concluded Darcy Berg was capable of gainful employment, but would continue to earn significantly less than Ricky Berg. Before the divorce, Ricky Berg was laid off from a job he held for 27 years, but he recently obtained his real estate license. Ricky Berg testified he would be able to make an income from selling real estate. The district court made extensive findings about the conduct of the parties during the marriage, including Darcy Berg’s alcoholism, both parties’ infidelity, and Darcy Berg’s economic waste. The district court concluded the couple accumulated large amounts of debt, but they also acquired significant assets due to Ricky Berg’s real estate knowledge. The district court determined Darcy Berg’s alcoholism and spending supported a "somewhat greater distribution of their net worth to Ricky."
[¶4] The district court divided the marital property and awarded marital assets in the amount of $507,336 to Ricky Berg and $327,794 to Darcy Berg. The district court allocated a majority of the marital debts in the amount of $187,704 to Ricky Berg and a minority of the debts in the amount of $43,185 were allocated to Darcy Berg. In total, Ricky Berg was awarded $319,632 and Darcy Berg was awarded $284,609. Relating to the asset division, the district court awarded the marital home in Grand Forks, the lake home, and two rental properties in Florida to Ricky Berg. Darcy Berg was awarded one rental property in Grand Forks and two rental properties in Florida. The district court also awarded Darcy Berg spousal support of $1,000 per month for 16 years.
[¶5] On appeal, Ricky Berg argues the district court erred in the distribution of the marital property and the award of spousal support. Ricky Berg argues the district court determined he was entitled to a somewhat greater distribution of the parties’ net worth, but the property division did not reflect that finding. He also argues the district court erred in the amount of the spousal support award to Darcy Berg. Ricky Berg argues that in combination with the spousal support award, the property division is inequitable.
[¶6] This Court will not reverse the district court’s decision related to both property distribution and spousal support unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Thompson v. Thompson , 2018 ND 21, ¶ 29, 905 N.W.2d 772 ; Ulsaker v. White , 2009 ND 18, ¶ 8, 760 N.W.2d 82.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support a finding, or if, although there is some evidence to support it, on the entire evidence, we are left with a firm conviction a mistake has been made.
[¶7] Ricky Berg argues he should have been awarded a greater amount of marital property because of Darcy Berg’s economic waste. This Court has held:
Ulsaker , 2009 ND 18, ¶¶ 8–9, 760 N.W.2d 82.
[¶8] Ricky Berg argues the property division was in appropriate because the division did not reflect the district court’s finding that he was entitled to a somewhat greater distribution of the marital property. The district court determined the value of the marital estate, made specific findings based on the Ruff - Fischer factors, and explained the reason for the disparity in the property division. Ricky Berg received a net property award valued at approximately $35,000 more than the net property awarded to Darcy Berg. The district court adequately explained its findings based on the Ruff - Fischer guidelines and followed those findings in distributing a "somewhat greater" amount of the marital property to Ricky Berg. The district court’s distribution of the marital estate was not clearly erroneous.
[¶9] Ricky Berg argues the district court did not consider his ability to pay and Darcy Berg’s need for support in its determination of spousal support. When reviewing awards of spousal support, this Court has held:
Thompson , 2018 ND 21, ¶¶ 29–31, 905 N.W.2d 772 (citation omitted).
[¶10] The district court did not clearly err by awarding spousal support. The district court made extensive findings under the Ruff - Fischer guidelines. Relating to spousal support, the district court concluded as follows:
In determining the amount of spousal support in this case, the Court took into consideration (1) the duration of the marriage, (2) the large amount of consumer debt incurred by the parties which must be paid, (3) that, given their respective earning history, Darcy likely will continue to earn significantly less than Ricky, (4) the remaining years of work life for each party, (5) that the order herein for assigning certain expenses to Darcy herself, such as telephone, health and car insurance, and the allocation of property and debts herein, all relieve Ricky of some of his claimed monthly expenses and place them upon Darcy, (6) that Ricky has the earning potential from three rental properties in Florida and Darcy has the earning from two rental properties in Florida and the Grand Forks, ND rental property, and (7) that while Ricky is assigned a slightly larger portion of the parties’ marital assets, he also is assigned a greater percentage of the marital debts.
[¶11] The district court did not explicitly quantify Darcy Berg’s need for spousal support...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Willprecht v. Willprecht
...is helpful for this Court in understanding the district court's rationale in awarding spousal support." Berg v. Berg , 2018 ND 79, ¶ 11, 908 N.W.2d 705 (citing Ulsaker v. White , 2009 ND 18, ¶ 9, 760 N.W.2d 82 ). " ‘We will not set aside the trial court's determinations on property division......
-
Kaspari v. Kaspari
...to support it, on the entire evidence, we are left with a firm conviction a mistake has been made. Berg v. Berg , 2018 ND 79, ¶ 6, 908 N.W.2d 705. [¶9] Section 14-05-24.1(1), N.D.C.C., provides for awards of spousal support:Taking into consideration the circumstances of the parties, the cou......
-
Vetter v. Vetter
...the district court’s decision related to property distribution unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Berg v. Berg , 2018 ND 79, ¶ 6, 908 N.W.2d 705. [¶18] Section 14-05-24(1), N.D.C.C., requires the district court make an equitable division of the parties’ marital estate. Swanson v. Sw......
-
Kaspari v. Kaspari
...to support it, on the entire evidence, we are left with a firm conviction a mistake has been made. Berg v. Berg, 2018 ND 79, ¶ 6, 908 N.W.2d 705. Section 14-05-24.1(1), N.D.C.C., provides for awards of spousal support: Taking into consideration the circumstances of the parties, the court ma......