Summary
This North Dakota Supreme Court decision reviews a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial in a divorce action. The appellant contested the final visitation schedule, the trial court's negative valuation of the wife's business, and the method used to calculate his child support income. The appellate court affirmed the rulings on visitation and asset valuation but reversed and remanded the child support calculation for misapplication of state guidelines.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Cameron Korynta’s motion for a new trial on the visitation schedule.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in assigning a negative valuation to Kim Korynta’s business in the marital‑asset distribution.
- Whether the trial court misapplied North Dakota child‑support guidelines by extrapolating Cameron Korynta’s 2004 income from less than a twelve‑month period.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial regarding visitation.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial regarding the valuation of the Dakota Shopper.
- The trial court misapplied the law by extrapolating Cameron’s 2004 income from only seven‑and‑a‑half months; the decision is reversed and the case remanded for proper calculation.
Key quotations
“The standard for reviewing an order denying a motion for a new trial is, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.” (¶ 7)
“The failure to properly apply the child support guidelines to the facts involves an error of law.” (¶ 19)
“We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for a new trial or to alter or amend its findings on the visitation and valuation of the Dakota Shopper.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Cameron and Kim Korynta married in 1995, had five children (including a daughter Kim adopted), and divorced in 2003. The trial court issued temporary orders on custody and support, held a trial in 2004, and entered a judgment in early 2005. Cameron sought a new trial and reconsideration of the visitation schedule, the valuation of Kim's business (Dakota Shopper), and the calculation of his income for child support.
Procedural history
The trial court entered judgment on January 31, 2005, denied Cameron Korynta's Rule 59 motions on March 4, 2005, and filed an amended judgment nunc pro tunc on July 19, 2005. Cameron appealed the denial of the new‑trial motion, the denial of the motion to reconsider, and the visitation, asset‑valuation, and child‑support determinations.
Remand instructions
On remand, the trial court must recalculate Cameron Korynta’s child‑support obligation using a proper twelve‑month income figure and consider whether his visitation schedule qualifies as "extended visitation" under N.D. Admin. Code § 75‑02‑04.1‑08.1(1).