Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed a divorce judgment awarding Lauren Shapiro sole physical custody, permitting relocation, setting child support, and dividing marital property. The court affirmed the custody and relocation decisions, affirmed the denial of a travel-expense deviation and the property division, and held that child support had to be recalculated to account for year-round extended-visitation adjustments and a sufficiently explained net-income calculation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court clearly erred in awarding Shapiro sole physical custody of the children.
- Whether the district court properly considered Shapiro's proposed relocation in making the initial custody award and then applying the Stout-Hawkinson relocation factors.
- Whether the district court correctly calculated Pember's child-support obligation, including the extended-visitation adjustment, net income, and claimed travel-expense deviation.
- Whether the premarital agreement was substantively enforceable when Pember signed it shortly before the wedding without independent legal advice and without understanding its terms.
- Whether the district court clearly erred in dividing the parties' marital assets and debts.
Holdings
- The award of sole physical custody to Shapiro was not clearly erroneous because the district court reasonably considered the statutory best-interest factors and the evidence concerning the children's relationships, stability, schooling, prior relocations, and Shapiro's role as primary caretaker.
- A district court may make an initial custody award and then consider the Stout-Hawkinson relocation factors in the same judgment. The court may also consider the proposed relocation when evaluating the statutory best-interest factors.
- The downward adjustment for extended visitation under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-08.1 must be applied over the entire year, not limited to the months in which the extended visitation actually occurs.
- The district court must clearly establish the obligor's net income and explain how it calculated the resulting child-support obligation. Because the district court provided no sufficient explanation for its net-income figure, recalculation was required.
- A downward deviation based on travel expenses incurred to exercise visitation is discretionary, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested deviation.
- The premarital agreement was unenforceable because the parties were unable to give proper consent under N.D.C.C. § 9-01-02, considering the agreement's unfamiliar and inflexible terms, hurried formation and execution, Pember's lack of understanding, and the absence of independent legal advice.
- The district court did not clearly err by excluding Shapiro's claimed loans from her mother for lack of specificity or by declining to adjust the property division based on Pember's alleged spending of marital assets.
Key quotations
“Nothing in the plain language of the rule restricts the downward deviation for extended visitation to the months in which the visitation occurs. On the contrary, the rule’s use of the “three hundred sixty-five” figure in calculating the child support obligation reflects that the entire year is to be considered.” (445-446)
“The district court departed from the child support guidelines by limiting the downward deviation in Pember’s support obligation to the months of actual visitation.” (446)
“Given the confusion surrounding the unfamiliar and inflexible terms in the agreement, as well as its rapid formation and execution, the parties were unable to give proper consent as required under N.D.C.C. § 9-01-02.” (447-448)
Factual background
Pember and Shapiro married shortly after beginning their relationship and had three children. On the morning of their wedding, they signed a premarital agreement prepared by a lawyer hired at Shapiro's mother's urging; Pember was not advised to obtain independent counsel and testified he did not understand the agreement. During the divorce, the parties disputed custody, Shapiro's proposed relocation from North Dakota toward the New York-New Jersey area, child support, enforcement of the premarital agreement, and division of marital assets and debts.
Procedural history
Pember commenced the divorce action in September 2008. After trial, the district court awarded Shapiro sole physical custody, granted Pember joint legal custody and visitation, permitted relocation, ordered child support, refused to enforce the premarital agreement, and divided the marital estate. The court later amended the judgment to eliminate spousal support and reduce child support. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the custody, relocation, property-division, and premarital-agreement rulings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of child support.
Remand instructions
Recalculate Pember's child-support obligation by establishing a detailed net-income calculation and applying the extended-visitation downward deviation for the entire year in accordance with N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-08.1. The custody, relocation, property-division, and premarital-agreement rulings were affirmed.