Willprecht v. Willprecht

• Decision Date: 18 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20200195,20200195
• Citation: 954 N.W.2d 707
• Parties: Wendy Michele WILLPRECHT, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Kevin John WILLPRECHT, Defendant and Appellant
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

954 N.W.2d 707

Wendy Michele WILLPRECHT, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.Kevin John WILLPRECHT, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20200195

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2021

Jason W. McLean, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Robert J. Schultz, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Kevin Willprecht appeals from an amended judgment altering his child support and spousal support obligations. Kevin Willprecht argues the district court erred in awarding spousal support without reconsidering the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, by failing to analyze Wendy Willprecht's spousal need as reflected by her living expenses, and because the spousal support award exceeded Kevin Willprecht's ability to pay. We reverse and remand the district court's spousal support award for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

[¶2] Wendy and Kevin Willprecht were married on December 18, 1999. They have four children together, three of whom remain minors. Wendy commenced this divorce action in May 2018 and trial was held on March 4-5, 2019. In its original decision the district court determined Wendy Willprecht was not entitled to spousal support. The court awarded Wendy Willprecht assets totaling $2,076,302, including an equalization payment of $750,000. The equalization payment was to be paid by Kevin Willprecht at $62,825 per year for 15 years with interest at 3%.

[¶3] Both parties appealed. Willprecht v. Willprecht , 2020 ND 77, 941 N.W.2d 556. This Court affirmed the allocation of assets and liabilities. Id. at ¶ 25. This Court concluded it was reversible error to fail to include a step-down provision for child support and remanded the issue of spousal support because the child support obligation was originally tied into the district court's decision on spousal support. Id. at ¶ 43. On remand, the district court held a status conference and asked what would be required to "button this one up." Kevin Willprecht requested additional findings based on the record. The district court agreed and requested each party submit written arguments.

[¶4] The district court issued an amended judgment on July 1, 2020. In the amended judgment, Kevin Willprecht's child support obligation for four children was $3,168 per month until September 2020. With the step-down provision, Kevin Willprecht's obligation decreased to $2,991 per month for three children in October 2020, $2,496 per month for two children in July 2023, and $1,509 per month for one child in July 2026. Under the step-down provision, Kevin Willprecht's total child support obligation is $80,781 less than the obligation established in the district court's initial decision.

[¶5] In addressing the spousal support request, the court made the following findings:

"In this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of April 29, 2019, the situation of the parties was considered using the Ruff-Fischer Guidelines. In sum, the Court found that given Wendy's income and receipt of an annual property settlement equalization payment more cash would be flowing into her household than would be remaining in Kevin's. In addition, Kevin paid all of the debts of the parties, including household expenses that were put on a credit card. Those considerations aside, there does remain a disparity in income. It was the intention of this Court to provide what amounted to temporary rehabilitative spousal support by not allowing Kevin a ‘step-down’ in his child support calculations. Clearly, that was an error. However, Kevin's child support obligation will diminish over time. This will lead to a greater ability to pay spousal support.

"Given the increased ability to pay due to a diminishing child support obligation, some form of rehabilitative spousal support is appropriate. Wendy has made a compelling argument that she should be entitled, under all circumstances, to an award of rehabilitative spousal support in the amount of $1,030 for the months of June 2020 through September 2020, and increasing that award to $1,735 per month in October 2020 through June 2028. This award of rehabilitative spousal support is made with full recognition that Kevin may have to tap into his equity to make the payments. The Judgment of this Court will be amended to include rehabilitative spousal support as indicated herein. The rehabilitative spousal support will terminate prior to the ordered expiration should Wendy cohabitate, remarry, or die."

Kevin Willprecht's total spousal support obligation to Wendy Willprecht under the amended judgment is $165,475. Kevin Willprecht appeals from that judgment.

II

[¶6] Kevin Willprecht asserts the district court erred in awarding spousal support without reconsidering the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. On remand, rather than re-analyzing the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the district court referred to its analysis of those guidelines in the original decision.

[¶7] A decision on spousal support is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Schmuck v. Schmuck , 2016 ND 87, ¶ 6, 882 N.W.2d 918. The district court must consider the Ruff-Fischer guidelines when determining if an award of spousal support is appropriate. Overland v. Overland , 2008 ND 6, ¶ 16, 744 N.W.2d 67. The Ruff-Fischer guidelines are: (1) the respective ages of the parties; (2) the parties’ earning abilities; (3) the duration of the marriage and the conduct of the parties during the marriage; (4) their station in life; (5) the circumstances and necessities of each party; (6) the health and physical condition of each party; (7) 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 (8) other matters as may be material. Willprecht , 2020 ND 77, ¶ 19, 941 N.W.2d 556. A mechanical application of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines is not required, but the court must explain the rationale for its decision. Id. Property distribution and spousal support are interrelated and often must be considered together. Id. at ¶ 40.

[¶8] In the district court's original findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, it concluded:

"As with property division, the Court must consider the Ruff-Fischer Guidelines in making its determination of spousal support. The parties were 42 and 45 years of age respectively, at the date of the hearing. Both parties are healthy. Kevin's drinking appears to be the root cause of the demise of this near 20-year marriage. Although, the parties accumulated farm assets during the course of their marriage, they appeared to be living a life typical of a middle-income couple. They owned a nice home, drove decent vehicles, provided for their children and took occasional family vacations.

"Wendy works part-time for Sargent County at Emergency Management and occasionally substitute teaches. Her income is approximately $2,100 per month. She is also provided with a single health insurance coverage. She will also be netting approximately $19,333 in farm rent. Her annual earned income ($2,100 x 12) and her farm rent, $19,333 is $44,533. Kevin's annual projected income, before taxes is $144,078. From this amount he will be paying approximately $24,000 in health insurance premiums. Kevin's annual child support obligation will exceed $36,000 per year. In addition, he will be making an equalization payment annually to Wendy in the amount of approximately $63,000. As a result, Wendy will have more spendable income available to her household than Kevin. Kevin is obligated to pay all of the debts of the parties. Wendy has a quality home with no mortgage obligation against it. Her vehicle is paid for. The Court did not include any ‘step-down’ calculations for Kevin's child support. This was done deliberately by the Court in light of the income disparity of the parties."

[¶9] In its amended order the district court did not address each of the guidelines. However, the court referenced its previous analysis of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. The court was not required to engage in a mechanical application of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines as part of the rationale for its determination. Willprecht , 2020 ND 77, ¶ 19, 941 N.W.2d 556. While property distribution and spousal support are ordinarily considered together, the court did not have the option to re-analyze property distribution here because that allocation was affirmed on the first appeal. Id. at ¶ 25 ; Viscito v. Christianson , 2016 ND 139, ¶ 7, 881 N.W.2d 633 (quoting Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Ins. , 2012 ND 203, ¶ 16, 821 N.W.2d 760 ) ("The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the [appellate court's] mandate into effect according to its terms.... and we retain the authority to decide whether the district court scrupulously and fully carried out our mandate's terms."). The only issues on remand were child support and spousal support. Under these circumstances, the court's incorporation of its previous Ruff-Fischer analysis rather than re-analyzing all of the factors was not clearly erroneous.

III

[¶10] Kevin Willprecht argues the district court failed to consider Wendy Willprecht's need for spousal support.

[¶11] 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." Overland, 2008 ND 6, ¶ 16, 744 N.W.2d 67. District courts are "not required to complete a calculation to ensure each party's assets, debts, and expenses are accounted for in determining spousal support; however, a clear description of the financial situation of each party 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...