Klein v. Klein
2015 N.D. LEXIS 251, 869 N.W.2d 750, 2015 ND 236 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's spousal support award, based on a comprehensive analysis of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, is reviewed for clear error and given deference. However, a court's calculation of income for child support is a matter of law and must strictly comply with the state's administrative guidelines, meaning a court cannot offset various income streams without making specific findings required by those guidelines.
Facts:
- Mary Ann Klein and Wesley Klein were married for 31 years and had nine children, with three being minors at the time of their divorce.
- Mary Ann Klein, who has a nursing degree, primarily stayed at home to care for the children and had recently started working as a part-time teaching assistant.
- Wesley Klein holds a business degree, is employed at Basin Electric Power, and also operates a cattle ranch.
- In addition to his primary employment, Wesley Klein received an estimated $24,000 in 2013 from serving on the Farm Bureau board, the Nodak Mutual board, and the Mercer County zoning board.
- The couple's cattle ranching operation had shown a financial loss in four of the previous five years.
- Mary Ann Klein testified to having health problems, including bulging discs in her back, anxiety, and depression, which could affect her ability to return to nursing.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2012, Mary Ann Klein filed a complaint for divorce against Wesley Klein in a North Dakota district court.
- Before trial, the parties reached a settlement on all property division and parenting issues.
- The district court held a trial solely on the remaining issues of spousal support and child support in July 2014.
- In October 2014, the district court entered a judgment ordering Wesley Klein to pay spousal support of $500 per month for 24 months and child support of $682 per month.
- Mary Ann Klein (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing the court erred in its spousal and child support calculations. Wesley Klein is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court err as a matter of law in calculating the obligor's income for child support purposes by offsetting income from board memberships against farm losses without making the specific findings required by the North Dakota child support guidelines?
Opinions:
Majority - McEyers, Justice
Yes, the district court erred as a matter of law in its calculation of Wesley Klein's income for child support purposes. The court's award of spousal support was affirmed because it was not clearly erroneous; the district court properly applied the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and considered the parties' assets, including a sizeable retirement fund awarded to Mary Ann. However, the child support calculation was flawed. The district court improperly offset Wesley Klein's estimated $24,000 income from various boards against his farm losses without determining if the board income legally qualified as 'self-employment income' that could be offset by farm losses under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-05(7). The court's assumption that these income sources would be 'a wash' failed to comply with the strict requirements of the child support guidelines, which constitutes an error of law requiring reversal and remand for proper findings and recalculation.
Dissenting - Sandstrom, Justice
No, the district court's decision should be affirmed. The issue of whether the district court improperly offset Wesley Klein's board income against his farm losses was not raised by Mary Ann Klein's counsel at the trial level. An issue that is not raised in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the appellate court should not consider this argument, and the district court's judgment should stand.
Analysis:
This decision highlights the critical distinction between the standards for reviewing spousal support and child support awards. It reinforces that while trial courts have broad discretion in fashioning equitable spousal support under the fact-intensive Ruff-Fischer guidelines, their authority in calculating child support is strictly constrained by formulaic administrative rules. The case serves as a precedent instructing trial courts that they must make explicit findings and demonstrate their work when dealing with complex income sources for child support, as failure to do so is an error of law subject to de novo review, not a factual finding protected by the more deferential 'clearly erroneous' standard. This holding ensures greater consistency and predictability in child support calculations across cases involving self-employment or multiple income streams.
