Parisien v. Parisien
779 N.W.2d 130, 2010 ND 35, 2010 N.D. LEXIS 35 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's award of spousal support, even when granted to a spouse who received a substantially larger share of the marital property, is not clearly erroneous if the award is justified by the factors in the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, such as significant disparities in earning capacity, the health of the parties, and marital misconduct.
Facts:
- Ronald and Jill Parisién were married in 1975, a marriage lasting approximately 33 years.
- During the marriage, Jill Parisién inherited seventy acres of land from her family, upon which the couple built their home.
- At the time of divorce, Jill Parisién was 50 years old, earned $24,000 annually, and had diabetes.
- At the time of divorce, Ronald Parisién was 52 years old, earned approximately $63,350 annually, and was in good health.
- The marriage ended due to Ronald Parisién's long-term affair and criminal activities, which resulted in his incarceration.
- While Ronald Parisién was incarcerated, Jill Parisién withdrew over $14,000 from her personal retirement account to pay family bills and taxes.
Procedural Posture:
- Jill Parisién filed a complaint for divorce against Ronald Parisién in a North Dakota district court (the court of first instance).
- After a trial, the district court granted the divorce, awarded Jill Parisién a greater share of the marital property, and ordered Ronald Parisién to pay permanent spousal support.
- Ronald Parisién (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, challenging only the award of spousal support.
- Jill Parisién is the appellee in the appeal 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:
Did the trial court commit clear error by awarding permanent spousal support to a spouse who also received a significantly larger share of the marital property?
Opinions:
Majority - Sandstrom, Justice
No, the trial court did not commit clear error. An award of spousal support is a finding of fact that will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and here the court properly applied the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. The court reasoned that property division and spousal support must be considered together to achieve an equitable outcome. Despite the unequal property division, the spousal support award was justified by several factors: Ronald's substantially greater earning capacity, his marital and criminal misconduct which caused the divorce and economic harm, Jill's health conditions, the long duration of the marriage, and the need for substantial repairs on the home awarded to Jill. The court also noted that if Jill's inherited land were excluded from the calculation, the property distribution would have favored Ronald, making the spousal support award a necessary tool to achieve an equitable result.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms that trial courts in North Dakota have broad discretion to fashion equitable remedies in divorce cases by considering property division and spousal support as intertwined tools. The case emphasizes that a mechanistic approach, where a lopsided property award precludes spousal support, is incorrect. Instead, it solidifies the principle that significant marital and economic misconduct can justify both an unequal property division and a spousal support award to the disadvantaged spouse. This precedent instructs future courts to look holistically at the circumstances, particularly the parties' earning capacities and conduct, rather than viewing property and support in separate vacuums.
Unlock the full brief for Parisien v. Parisien