Martin v. Martin, 9894
| Decision Date | 23 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 9894,9894 |
| Citation | 304 N.W.2d 697 |
| Parties | Jeannette E. MARTIN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Alfred MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Farhart, Rasmuson, Lian & Maxson, Minot, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Moody M. Farhart, Minot.
McClintock, Butz & Kraft, Rugby, for defendant and appellant; argued by Carlan J. Kraft, Rugby.
The defendant, Alfred Martin (Alfred), appealed from a judgment in which he was granted a divorce from the plaintiff, Jeannette Martin (Jeannette), on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, and Jeannette was granted a divorce from him on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. The judgment provided for a division of the couple's property and ordered Alfred to pay Jeannette alimony in the amount of $400 a month for a period of five years.
Prior to trial the parties entered into a stipulation in which each party submitted appraisals of the value of the couple's real and personal property. Alfred's appraisal valued the couple's real and personal property at $329,795.00, and Jeannette's appraisal valued the same property at $517,500.00. The parties also stipulated that the court could receive the written appraisal of Walter T. Bosley on behalf of Alfred and the written appraisals of Robert Deardurff and Don Hambeck on behalf of Jeannette.
After trial, the district court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. The district court issued a memorandum which clarified some of its findings and also provided additional findings. However, the district court made no finding as to the value of any of the property, or the net worth of the marital estate despite the fact that each party submitted individual appraisals and third-party appraisals regarding the value of the property.
In Williams v. Williams, 302 N.W.2d 754 (N.D.1981), the lower court distributed the couple's property but did not make a determination as to the net worth of the couple's property. We noted that whenever sufficient evidence has been admitted from which the court can, but has not, determined the net worth of the parties' real and personal property, the Ruff-Fischer 1 guidelines for equitable property distribution cannot be properly applied. In Williams, we held that the property division was clearly erroneous because the record disclosed no foundation supporting the court's distribution of the property.
In this instance we believe the trial court erred in not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voth v. Voth
...adequate findings. This should not be interpreted as a relaxation of the significance of Rule 52(a), NDRCivP. Recently, in Martin v. Martin, 304 N.W.2d 697 (N.D.1981), we remanded for the preparation of findings of fact which were necessary to permit this court to make a meaningful review o......
-
Radspinner v. Charlesworth
...See VanRosendale v. VanRosendale, 333 N.W.2d 790, 792 (N.D.1983); Tuff v. Tuff, 333 N.W.2d 421, 424 (N.D.1983); Martin v. Martin, 304 N.W.2d 697, 698 (N.D.1981); see also Hydrospace-Challenger, Inc. v. Tracor/MAS, Inc., 520 F.2d 1030, 1035 (5th Cir.1975). Under these circumstances, the prop......
-
Svetenko v. Svetenko, 9860
...we cannot remand for the making of an appropriate finding of fact pursuant to Rule 35, N.D.R.App.P., as we recently did in Martin v. Martin, 304 N.W.2d 697 (N.D.1981). Under these circumstances, because we are seeking justice for the parties, we are forced into a further dilution of Rule 52......
-
Martin v. Martin, 9894
...and Jeanette was granted a divorce from him on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. Earlier we remanded this case, Martin v. Martin, 304 N.W.2d 697 (N.D.1981), with instructions for the trial court to make appropriate findings of fact as to the value of the couple's property and for ......