Kaspari v. Kaspari
2022 ND 57 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spousal support award is clearly erroneous if the amount is grossly disproportionate to the evidence of the recipient's need and the court's rationale, lacking specific findings, appears to be an arbitrary attempt to equalize the parties' incomes rather than to provide for adequate self-support consistent with the marital standard of living.
Facts:
- Jean Kaspari and Thomas Kaspari married in 1983.
- During the marriage, Thomas Kaspari attended medical school and became a physician.
- Jean Kaspari, who has an associate's degree in nursing, worked until 1996 when the couple agreed she would stop working to raise their children.
- The parties separated in 2013, and Jean Kaspari returned to work shortly before the separation.
- At the time of the divorce, Jean Kaspari earned approximately $57,000 per year, while Thomas Kaspari earned over $400,000 per year.
- Jean Kaspari testified her annual expenses were roughly $65,000, creating an $8,000 budget shortfall, and she was unable to buy a home or do things she enjoyed during the marriage.
- Thomas Kaspari remained in the marital home and had significant discretionary income, which he used for large purchases including international travel, tractors, and an airplane.
Procedural Posture:
- Jean Kaspari filed for divorce from Thomas Kaspari in the District Court of Mercer County, a state trial court.
- The district court granted the divorce and ordered Thomas Kaspari to pay spousal support of $7,000 per month until Jean Kaspari's death or remarriage.
- Thomas Kaspari appealed that judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
- In the first appeal (Kaspari I), the Supreme Court ruled that support of an unlimited duration was an error, vacated the spousal support award, and remanded the case to the district court.
- On remand, the district court entered an amended judgment ordering Thomas Kaspari to pay spousal support of $7,000 per month until he reaches age 65.
- Thomas Kaspari, as appellant, appealed the amended judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing the amount of the award was incorrect.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a spousal support award clearly erroneous where the amount awarded is substantially greater than the recipient spouse's documented budget shortfall and the trial court's justification focuses primarily on the large disparity in the parties' incomes?
Opinions:
Majority - VandeWalle, Justice
Yes. A spousal support award is clearly erroneous if it is disproportionate to the recipient's demonstrated need and appears to be an attempt to equalize the parties' incomes. While courts must consider the disparity in earning power and the marital standard of living under the Ruff-Fischer factors, the award must be rationally connected to the recipient's needs. Here, the award of $84,000 per year ($7,000 per month) is inconsistent with Jean Kaspari's evidence of an $8,000 annual budget shortfall. The district court's reasoning focused heavily on the income disparity and its goal to 'equalize the burdens of the divorce,' but North Dakota law has not endorsed equalizing incomes as a proper measure for spousal support. Without further findings explaining the basis for the specific amount, the award appears arbitrary and must be reversed and remanded for the district court to either provide a better explanation or reconsider the amount.
Dissenting - McEvers, Justice
No. The spousal support award is not clearly erroneous because it is supported by the evidence when viewed correctly. The majority improperly focuses on a 'minimal self-sufficiency' standard by fixating on Jean Kaspari's current $8,000 budget shortfall. The true goal of spousal support is 'adequate self-support' based on the standard of living established during the long-term marriage, not just covering current, reduced expenses. Jean testified her current lifestyle was 'paycheck to paycheck' and her financial statement indicated expenses of approximately $94,000 were needed to achieve a comparable standard of living. The district court correctly tried to balance the burdens of the divorce, where Thomas maintains a high standard of living while Jean cannot. The award does not equalize incomes—a $175,000 gap remains—but rightfully apportions the financial consequences of the divorce, and the trial court's decision should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits on a trial court's discretion when setting spousal support amounts, particularly in cases with significant income disparity. It reinforces the principle that while income disparity is a key factor, an award cannot be a veiled attempt at post-divorce income redistribution. The decision mandates that trial courts must make specific findings that connect the dollar amount of support to the recipient's needs, as defined by the marital standard of living. This holding requires litigants to provide detailed evidence of that standard and cautions lower courts that a simple desire to 'equalize the burdens' is an insufficient rationale without a more concrete financial justification.
