Reineke v. Reineke

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed a divorce judgment addressing property division, rehabilitative spousal support, child custody, child testimony, custody-investigator appointment, and attorney fees. The court held that the property distribution, support award, custody determination, denial of a custody investigator, and denial of attorney fees were not erroneous or an abuse of discretion. It remanded the matter with directions for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over possible future modification of spousal support.

Holdings

1. The trial court's property distribution and $300-per-month rehabilitative spousal-support award were not clearly erroneous.
2. The award of primary physical custody of the parties' children to Frances was not clearly erroneous.
3. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the fourteen- and seventeen-year-old children to testify without first assessing whether they had sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a custody preference, but the error did not require reversal of the custody determination.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ronald's request for appointment of a custody investigator.
5. When a trial court awards temporary rehabilitative support but is uncertain whether permanent support may later be necessary, it should retain jurisdiction to consider a future modification or award of spousal support.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Frances attorney fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's unequal division of marital property was clearly erroneous.
2. Whether the award of rehabilitative spousal support of $300 per month for four years was clearly erroneous.
3. Whether the award of primary physical custody to Frances was clearly erroneous.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the fourteen- and seventeen-year-old children to testify without first assessing their intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a custody preference.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ronald's request for appointment of a custody investigator.
6. Whether the trial court should have retained jurisdiction to modify spousal support after the temporary award expired.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Frances attorney fees.

Disposition

affirmed