Kaspari v. Kaspari
| Decision Date | 10 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20220141 |
| Citation | 982 N.W.2d 291 |
| Parties | Jean KASPARI, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Thomas KASPARI, Defendant and Appellant |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Ann Christianson Mahoney, Center, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Jennifer M. Gooss, Beulah, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
[¶1] Thomas Kaspari appeals from an amended judgment entered following a reversal and remand of an award of spousal support. On remand, the district court supplemented its findings and confirmed its prior spousal support award. Thomas Kaspari asserts the court did not adequately explain its decision and its findings are clearly erroneous. Because we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made in awarding spousal support, without adequate explanation, in an amount more than double the recipient's expenses as found by the court and advanced by the recipient, by including within the recipient's need expenses paid on behalf of adult children, and by finding the obligor had an ability to pay based upon a 70-80 hour work week, we reverse and remand this case for reconsideration of an appropriate amount of spousal support.
[¶2] Jean and Thomas Kaspari married in 1983 and share three adult children. Jean Kaspari is a registered nurse. Thomas Kaspari is a physician.
[¶3] Jean Kaspari moved out of the marital home in 2013, and in 2019, she filed for divorce. During the parties’ separation prior to the start of these proceedings, and after an interim order was entered in these proceedings, Thomas Kaspari paid Jean Kaspari $2,000 monthly in spousal support. When these proceedings began, Jean Kaspari was 58 years old and Thomas Kaspari was 59 years old.
[¶4] The parties stipulated to a marital property allocation of their marital assets and liabilities, reserving for trial the issue of spousal support and a potential marital property equalization payment. Following a trial in August 2020, the district court ordered Thomas Kaspari to pay Jean Kaspari $7,000 per month in permanent spousal support "until her death or remarriage."
[¶5] We reversed the judgment in Kaspari v. Kaspari , 2021 ND 63, ¶ 7, 958 N.W.2d 139 (" Kaspari I "), holding the district court erred because the spousal support award was for an unlimited duration in violation of N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1. Although raised on appeal, we did not consider Thomas Kaspari's arguments concerning the amount of spousal support ordered, and instead indicated the court could reconsider the appropriate amount on remand. Kaspari I , at ¶ 8.
[¶6] On remand following Kaspari I , the district court ordered Thomas Kaspari to pay $7,000 monthly in spousal support until he turns 65. A majority of this Court again reversed in Kaspari v. Kaspari , 2022 ND 57, ¶ 14, 971 N.W.2d 846 (" Kaspari II "), holding the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for the amount of spousal support. The case was remanded with instructions to the district court for "further findings explaining its decision or to reconsider the amount of support." Id.
[¶7] On remand following Kaspari II , the district court entered an order supplementing its findings and conclusions of law. The court incorporated its prior findings and made additional findings concerning the Ruff-Fischer factors. The court declined to modify the prior judgment and again imposed a spousal support obligation on Thomas Kaspari of $7,000 per month until he turns 65.
[¶8] We review an award of spousal support as a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Willprecht v. Willprecht , 2021 ND 17, ¶ 7, 954 N.W.2d 707. 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. 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 court may require one party to pay spousal support to the other party for a limited period of time in accordance with this section. 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 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 material.
Id. (quoting Quamme v. Quamme , 2021 ND 208, ¶ 14, 967 N.W.2d 452 ).
[¶10] "The district court must make spousal support awards ‘in consideration of the needs of the spouse seeking support and of the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay.’ " Willprecht , 2021 ND 17, ¶ 11, 954 N.W.2d 707 (quoting Overland v. Overland , 2008 ND 6, ¶ 16, 744 N.W.2d 67 ). In Willprecht , we remanded an award of spousal support that failed to consider the recipient's "estimated monthly living expenses or need for support[.]" Id. at ¶ 12. Similarly, in Overland , we remanded for further findings on a spousal support award ordered without evidence of need while noting the "court seemed to award spousal support as a method to award more property" to the recipient spouse. 2008 ND 6, ¶ 21, 744 N.W.2d 67.
[¶11] An award based on need will not be set aside when it falls within the range of the parties’ presented evidence. Lynnes v. Lynnes , 2008 ND 71, ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 93. In Mertz v. Mertz , 2015 ND 13, ¶¶ 11-12, 858 N.W.2d 292, this Court articulated the inverse of the rule found in Lynnes , reversing an award because the district court "awarded spousal support in excess of the amount requested[,]" the findings were "inadequate" to justify such an amount, and the court "misapplied the law." The requirement to limit spousal support to the need of the recipient was also noted by this Court in Ingebretson v. Ingebretson , 2005 ND 41, ¶ 20, 693 N.W.2d 1, where we recognized the following:
Where the evidence in the record does not support an award of permanent spousal support because the recipient testified she needed support for ten years, and the court has not articulated a reason for exceeding the duration of her request, we conclude the award of permanent spousal support was clearly erroneous. We reverse and remand for detailed findings or an amended award.
[¶12] Here, the district court found Jean Kaspari's annual expenses following the divorce totaled $94,000. The court found her annual income was $57,000. The net difference between Jean Kaspari's expenses and her income is $37,000. The court also found Thomas Kaspari has an ability to pay, finding his annual income to be approximately $400,000. Thomas Kaspari was then ordered to pay $7,000 per month in spousal support, which amounts to an annual obligation of $84,000. The result is an award that requires Thomas Kaspari to pay $47,000 more each year than the net difference between Jean Kaspari's income and expenses.
[¶13] The district court noted that Jean Kaspari's requested spousal support in the amount of $10,000 per month included a desire for a $17,000 down payment to purchase the home she is currently residing in. The court also noted that Jean Kaspari had accrued $37,133.56 in credit card debt since leaving the family home in 2013 and while receiving $2,000 per month in spousal support. The court then provided the following explanation for continuing to order spousal support in the amount of $7,000 per month:
The Court continues to conclude the additional $7,000 each month in spousal support is appropriate in this case. It allows her to pay off her credit card debt and begin saving for the down payment for her home. Additionally, it would allow her to make her monthly mortgage payments on the property. With the additional support, Jean will have the ability to travel with her children, paying for the trips without accumulating additional debt. Jean will also be able to save additional money so she can retire, support herself and attempt to maintain her standard of living. This is the "security" she requested during her testimony.
[¶14] The problem with the district court's reasoning is that it adds additional expenses into the spousal support award that were already incorporated into the court's original finding of $94,000 as a total for Jean Kaspari's needs. The expenses of $94,000 included annual retirement contributions of $7,200, annual travel expenses of $7,200, and annual entertainment expenses of $12,000, in addition to the cost of housing, utilities, clothing, personal care, food, household items, insurance, transportation, unreimbursed health care costs, charitable contributions, gifts, and miscellaneous items.
[¶15] The district court's award of support in excess of Jean Kaspari's identified expenses to allow Jean Kaspari to travel with her children ignores the $19,200 already included within Jean Kaspari's annual expenses specifically for travel and entertainment. The excess award to account for retirement savings ignores the $7,200 already included within her expenses for retirement contributions and ignores the retirement contributions allocated as part of the stipulated property and debt allocation. Other than the $17,000 down payment for a home and the credit card debt of $37,000, the record and the court's findings are devoid of any identification or quantification of additional expenses Jean Kaspari will incur in excess of her self-identified need of $94,000. We conclude the court erred in applying the law by awarding spousal support exceeding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial