Lizakowski v. Lizakowski
930 N.W.2d 609, 2019 ND 177 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a divorce proceeding, all assets and debts held by either party, including premarital property, must first be included in the marital estate for division. When determining the duration of the marriage for the purpose of equitable distribution, the court must consider the entire relationship, including any period of premarital cohabitation.
Facts:
- Adam Lizakowski and Tonia Lizakowski began dating in 2002.
- The couple began living together in 2003 in a home that had been awarded to Tonia Lizakowski in a previous divorce.
- The couple married in 2008 and subsequently had two children.
- Tonia Lizakowski sold the home she had been awarded in her prior divorce, which resulted in proceeds of $45,236.
- The couple lived together for approximately six years before marrying and were married for nine years before Tonia Lizakowski filed for divorce in 2017.
Procedural Posture:
- Tonia Lizakowski sued Adam Lizakowski for divorce in a North Dakota district court (trial court).
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered a judgment that excluded $45,236 of Tonia Lizakowski's premarital assets from the marital estate and divided the remaining property.
- The district court also awarded Tonia Lizakowski attorney's fees.
- Adam Lizakowski filed a post-judgment motion to amend the findings and judgment, which the district court denied, awarding Tonia Lizakowski additional attorney's fees.
- Adam Lizakowski (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment and post-judgment orders to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
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 district court err in distributing marital property when it excludes a spouse's premarital asset from the marital estate and fails to consider the parties' period of premarital cohabitation when determining the duration of the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Tufte, Justice
Yes. A district court errs when it excludes premarital property from the marital estate instead of first including all assets and then considering their origin during the equitable distribution phase. The court also errs when it determines the duration of a marriage for property division purposes without considering the period of premarital cohabitation. Under North Dakota law, there is a presumption that all property held by either party is marital property. Precedent requires that separate property must initially be included in the marital estate. Only after all property is included may the court consider its origin, along with other factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, to achieve an equitable division. Furthermore, case law establishes that it is appropriate for a court to consider the entire duration of the parties' relationship, including premarital cohabitation, when classifying the length of a marriage. The district court's failure to include the $45,236 and its finding of a short-term marriage without considering the cohabitation period were both erroneous views of the law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the mandatory "all property" rule in North Dakota divorce law, prohibiting trial courts from setting aside premarital or separate assets at the outset of the property division analysis. It clarifies a crucial two-step process: first, include all assets in the marital estate, and second, apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines to achieve an equitable distribution, where the origin of an asset is merely one factor among many. The ruling also solidifies the precedent that premarital cohabitation is legally significant and must be considered when determining the length of a marriage, moving away from a purely formalistic view toward a more substantive evaluation of the parties' entire relationship.
