Klein v. Klein
| Decision Date | 17 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 20140449.,20140449. |
| Citation | 869 N.W.2d 750 |
| Parties | Mary Ann KLEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Wesley KLEIN, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Carey A. Goetz, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.
Sherry Mills Moore, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellee.
[¶ 1] Mary Ann Klein appeals from a divorce judgment entered after trial awarding spousal support and child support. We conclude the district court did not clearly err in its award of spousal support to Mary Ann Klein, but conclude the court erred in calculating Wesley Klein's income for child support purposes. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
[¶ 2] In 2012, Mary Ann Klein commenced this action for divorce. Wesley Klein and Mary Ann Klein were married for 31 years and have nine children together, three of whom were still minors. Mary Ann Klein was 52 and Wesley Klein was 53 years of age at the time of the divorce proceedings.
[¶ 3] Although Mary Ann Klein has a nursing degree, she had primarily stayed at home to care for the children and had recently begun working as a teaching assistant. Wesley Klein has a business degree and is employed with Basin Electric Power at one of its power plants. Wesley Klein also receives income estimated at $24,000 for 2013 from serving on the Farm Bureau board, the Nodak Mutual board, and the Mercer County zoning board. The parties have been ranching since about 2000 or 2001 and before that always had horses on the homestead. The district court found the cattle operation has shown a loss for four of the last five years.
[¶ 4] Before trial, the parties settled all property and parenting issues, reserving issues of spousal support and child support for trial. In July 2014, the district court held a trial on the remaining issues. In October 2014, the court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for judgment, and a divorce judgment was subsequently entered. The court ordered Wesley Klein to pay Mary Ann Klein spousal support of $500 a month for 24 months or until she dies or remarries, and ordered Wesley Klein to pay child support of $682 per month.
[¶ 5] Mary Ann Klein argues the district court erred in calculating Wesley Klein's income for purposes of establishing both spousal support and child support. Mary Ann Klein appears to combine the income calculations for both spousal support and child support. We have, however, specifically addressed whether child support and spousal support income determinations must be equal:
Conzemius v. Conzemius, 2014 ND 5, ¶ 41, 841 N.W.2d 716 (quoting Becker v. Becker, 2011 ND 107, ¶ 15, 799 N.W.2d 53 ). Because income determinations for child support and spousal support require separate analyses, we will address Mary Ann Klein's arguments regarding spousal support and child support separately.
[¶ 6] Mary Ann Klein argues the district court erred in its award of spousal support to her.
[¶ 7] Under N.D.C.C. § 14–05–24.1, the district court “may require one party to pay spousal support to the other party for any period of time.” This Court has disposed of the disadvantaged spouse doctrine in determining spousal support and reemphasized “the importance of a comprehensive analysis under the Ruff–Fischer guidelines.” Mertz v. Mertz, 2015 ND 13, ¶ 9, 858 N.W.2d 292 (quoting Sack v. Sack, 2006 ND 57, ¶ 12, 711 N.W.2d 157 ); see Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952) ; Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966). In deciding whether to award spousal support, the district court must consider all relevant factors under the Ruff–Fischer guidelines:
[T]he 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.
Mertz, at ¶ 10; see also Gustafson v. Gustafson, 2008 ND 233, ¶ 6, 758 N.W.2d 895.
[¶ 8] While the district court need not make a finding on each factor, the court must explain its rationale for its determination. Becker, 2011 ND 107, ¶ 28, 799 N.W.2d 53. The court must consider the “supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay as well as the receiving spouse's income and needs.” Gustafson, 2008 ND 233, ¶ 6, 758 N.W.2d 895. “Rehabilitative spousal support is awarded to equalize the burden of divorce or to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent status by providing that spouse an opportunity to acquire an education, training, work skills, or experience to become self-supporting.” Rustad v. Rustad, 2013 ND 185, ¶ 18, 838 N.W.2d 421 (quoting Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71, ¶ 31, 830 N.W.2d 571 ).
[¶ 9] The district court's findings of fact in deciding whether to award spousal support will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Becker, 2011 ND 107, ¶ 6, 799 N.W.2d 53. “Income is a finding of fact.” Id. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, no evidence exists to support the finding, or this Court is convinced, based on the entire record, a mistake has been made. Id.
[¶ 10] Mary Ann Klein argues that the district court erred in awarding her rehabilitative spousal support of only $500 per month for two years. She asserts instead that permanent spousal support of $3,000 per month is appropriate because she is more than 50 years old, gave up her nursing career nearly 30 years ago to raise their family, and now has limited ability to reestablish a career that will provide her with long-term support. She contends that the court further erred when it only considered Wesley Klein's annual income of $82,937 from his work at Basin Electric without including other income, that his ability to provide her with additional support each month is significantly higher, and that her needs remain high based on her difficult position regarding gainful employment.
[¶ 11] Although Mary Ann Klein received a nursing degree and worked in that capacity early in the marriage, she currently works part time as a teacher's assistant earning about $9 per hour. She asserts she is not currently licensed for nursing and would have to apply to the nursing board to reactivate her license before she would be able to work in nursing. She asserts she would prefer to teach but would need further education. Mary Ann Klein asserts that the parties had decided she would leave the workforce to fully devote herself to the family and the farming and ranching operation and that $500 of monthly spousal support does not restore her to the lifestyle she enjoyed while the parties were together. She contends Wesley Klein has not been impacted financially regarding his cash flow and her needs are far more dire. She asserts that while he is left with approximately $3,500 each month after his expenses are paid, Mary Ann Klein is $5,000 behind each month.
[¶ 12] Mary Ann Klein also argues the district court erred in finding she is in reasonably good health and testified at trial about various health problems, including bulging discs in her back, anxiety, and depression. She asserts her back was injured while working on the farm and she may not be able to perform all duties necessary to be a nurse. She contends that Wesley Klein's income from serving on various boards of $24,000 per year is significantly greater than the rental fees Mary Ann Klein will receive for the quarter of land she received, which is only $7,600 annually. She contends Wesley Klein has a greater ability to pay spousal support because his actual gross income is $128,830.
[¶ 13] Here, in its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, the district court considered all of the Ruff–Fischer guidelines in awarding rehabilitative spousal support to Mary Ann Klein of $500 per month for two years. The court specifically considered that she had received a “sizeable” retirement fund through the property settlement and also received rural property, with Mary Ann Klein receiving approximately $50,000 more in the parties' property division. The court found that since the parties had separated two years earlier, Mary Ann Klein had not made any “real forays” into the employment market. She also has rental income from the property.
[¶ 14] The district court specifically stated that it considered the assets with which each party is leaving the marriage under the property agreement and that Mary Ann Klein has a sizeable retirement in place. The court also imputed annual gross income to her. While Mary Ann Klein testified to certain health concerns, the record does not reveal documentation or medical records establishing how her purported health problems affect her ability to work. In deciding the amount of spousal support to award Mary Ann Klein, the court concluded:
Each party is in good health and able to provide for his or her own support with some assistance for Mary Ann. Mary Ann is obviously a hard worker as she has raised, with Wesley, nine children and continues to do so. Mary Ann has worked with the family on the ranch raising cattle, horses, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial