Kaspari v. Kaspari
2021 ND 63 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota Century Code § 14-05-24.1(1), a spousal support award must be for a 'limited period of time,' which requires a specific, fixed duration. An award that continues indefinitely until the recipient's death or remarriage is not for a 'limited period' and is therefore invalid.
Facts:
- Jean Kaspari and Thomas Kaspari married in 1983.
- Jean Kaspari is a registered nurse and Thomas Kaspari is a physician.
- After approximately 30 years of marriage, Jean Kaspari moved out of the marital home in 2013.
- Jean Kaspari initiated divorce proceedings in 2019.
- The parties reached an agreement on the division of their marital property, but the issue of spousal support remained contested.
Procedural Posture:
- Jean Kaspari filed a complaint for divorce against Thomas Kaspari in the District Court of Mercer County, a state trial court.
- Following a trial, the district court entered a divorce judgment that, among other things, ordered Thomas Kaspari to pay Jean Kaspari spousal support until her death or remarriage.
- Thomas Kaspari (appellant) appealed the spousal support provision of the judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
- Jean Kaspari is the appellee in the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spousal support award that continues until the recipient's death or remarriage constitute an award for 'a limited period of time' as required by N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - VandeWalle, Justice
No. A spousal support award that continues until the recipient's death or remarriage is for an indefinite, unlimited period and therefore does not comply with the statutory requirement that such support be for 'a limited period of time.' The court reasoned that the legislature's 2015 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1, which changed the permissible duration from 'any period of time' to 'a limited period of time,' was a purposeful act intended to prohibit indefinite awards. The plain meaning of 'limited period' requires a set, fixed duration. An award contingent on death or remarriage lacks a fixed duration, could potentially last a lifetime, and is therefore indefinite and statutorily non-compliant. The court distinguished prior case law referencing 'indefinite permanent support' as not being dispositive on the interpretation of the amended statute's durational requirement.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear interpretation of the 2015 amendment to North Dakota's spousal support statute, effectively ending the practice of awarding 'permanent' or indefinite spousal support in the state. The ruling establishes a bright-line rule requiring all spousal support awards to have a specified end date or a fixed term of years. This changes how courts must structure support in long-term marriages, shifting away from indefinite obligations and toward awards with clearly defined durations. Future legal disputes will likely center on determining what constitutes a reasonable 'limited period' under the specific facts of a case.
