Oldham v. Oldham

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed orders entered in a divorce action involving child support, visitation, marital-property division, spousal support, attorney fees, health-insurance coverage, and joint tax returns. The court held that the trial court's determinations were not clearly erroneous and that it did not abuse its discretion.

Holdings

1. The district court did not clearly err in calculating Daniel Oldham's monthly child-support obligation at $540 because Rebecca did not show that Daniel had significant influence or control over the employer's pension contributions or that the benefits could be liquidated without an income-tax penalty.
2. The district court was not required to make the child-support obligation retroactive to April 1, 2002; the December 1, 2002 effective date was proper.
3. The district court's award of three overnight visits during each nine-day period was not clearly erroneous.
4. The district court did not clearly err in valuing the marital property or dividing the marital property and debts.
5. The denial of Rebecca's request for two years of rehabilitative spousal support was not clearly erroneous.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring each party to bear his or her own attorney fees and costs.
7. The district court did not clearly err in requiring Rebecca, the parent with physical custody, to secure the child's health insurance at nominal cost and requiring Daniel to reimburse the $37 monthly premium attributable to the child.
8. The district court did not abuse its discretion by directing the parties to file joint 2002 income-tax returns.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court improperly calculated Daniel Oldham's child-support obligation by excluding employer-paid pension contributions and by setting the obligation at $540 per month.
2. Whether the district court was required to make the child-support obligation retroactive to April 1, 2002.
3. Whether the district court's visitation schedule was clearly erroneous.
4. Whether the district court clearly erred in valuing and dividing the marital property and debts.
5. Whether the denial of rehabilitative spousal support was clearly erroneous.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Rebecca attorney fees and costs.
7. Whether the district court clearly erred in requiring Rebecca to secure health insurance for the child and ordering Daniel to reimburse the attributable premium.
8. Whether the district court abused its discretion by directing the parties to file joint income-tax returns for 2002.

Disposition

affirmed