IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 240

Jennifer Michelle Williams, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Aron Lyle Williams, Defendant and Appellant

and

State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20230201

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, 

the Honorable Reid A. Brady, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Jennifer M. Williams, Fargo, ND, plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief. 

Victoria C. Hicks (argued) and Leslie J. Aldrich (on brief), Fargo, ND, for

defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

DECEMBER 15, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Williams v. Williams, et al.

No. 20230201

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Aron Williams appeals from a third amended judgment modifying his

child support obligation, arguing the district court erred in calculating his 

income for child support purposes by improperly categorizing him as a “farm 

manager” and imputing income based on that designation. We hold the court 

did not clearly err when it imputed the North Dakota statewide average

income of a farmer to Aron Williams for purposes of child support. Aron 

Williams also argues that the court erred with respect to its decisions on 

evidentiary matters and awarding attorney’s fees to Jennifer Williams. We 

conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s

motion to reopen the record or in awarding attorney’s fees. We affirm.

I

[¶2] Aron Williams and Jennifer Williams have two children together and

divorced in February 2018. Jennifer Williams was awarded primary 

residential responsibility of the children. Aron Williams was ordered to pay 

child support based on his classification as an experienced farmer with an 

imputed gross annual income of $97,164. In July 2019, Aron Williams moved 

to modify child support. The district court found Aron Williams was employed 

as a farm laborer earning $38,260 as gross annual income and received in-kind

annual income of $11,220. The court ordered a modified child support 

obligation and entered the first amended judgment. The court later entered a 

second amended judgment modifying parenting time which was affirmed on 

appeal. See Williams v. Williams, 2021 ND 134, 962 N.W.2d 601. 

[¶3] In June 2022, Jennifer Williams moved to modify the second amended 

judgment, seeking modification of parenting time provisions, increased child 

support, and for contempt for violating the judgment. The district court 

scheduled a hearing on the motion for September 2022. Prior to the hearing, a 

discovery dispute arose between the parties. Jennifer Williams moved to 

compel discovery and to continue the child support modification hearing until 
2

Aron Williams provided the requested discovery responses. The court granted 

Jennifer Williams’s motion on the issues of parenting time and contempt, and 

continued the child support issue.

[¶4] In November 2022, the district court held a hearing on Jennifer 

Williams’s motion to compel. The court granted Jennifer Williams’s motion to 

compel, finding Aron Williams failed to answer or respond to discovery 

requests by providing evasive or incomplete answers or responses, and such

conduct was not substantially justified. The court ordered Aron Williams to 

pay $4,185 to Jennifer Williams for her reasonable expenses incurred in 

bringing the motion to compel. 

[¶5] A hearing on the child support issue was held in February 2023. Jennifer 

Williams, Aron Williams, and Aron Williams’s father, Lyle Williams, testified 

at the hearing. After the child support hearing, Aron Williams moved to reopen 

the record, arguing it was necessary to clarify Lyle Williams’s testimony at the 

evidentiary hearing and to submit additional exhibits. Jennifer Williams 

opposed the motion. The district court denied the motion to reopen the record, 

finding Aron Williams failed to show a sufficient basis for reopening the 

evidentiary record. 

[¶6] The district court found Aron Williams failed to provide reliable 

information regarding his earning income, particularly his in-kind income. The 

court found Aron Williams received significant in-kind income from his family

and determined his total in-kind annual income was at least $52,627.88. The 

court also found information about Aron Williams’s income could not be 

reasonably obtained from sources other than him, and his family members who 

employed him were not willing to provide such information. Because reliable 

information was not available to determine his income, the court determined

his income must be imputed under N.D. Amin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6)(b). 

[¶7] To determine Aron Williams’s gross annual income, the district court 

compared his job duties to the descriptions of “Farmers, Ranchers, and Other 

Agricultural Managers” and “Farm Laborers or Farm Workers” in the 2021 

Employment and Wages by Occupation report published by Job Service of 
3

North Dakota (“Job Service report”). The court found Aron Williams was a 

farmer based on Aron Williams’s past farming experience, active participation 

in major farming activities, and help coordinating the operation of his parent’s

and extended family’s farming operation. The court also found Aron Williams 

did not perform the duties of a farm laborer or farm worker listed in the Job 

Service report. Based on the statewide average annual earnings of a farmer in 

North Dakota, the court imputed income of $107,300, resulting in a $1,842 

monthly child support obligation after deductions.

[¶8] The district court entered the order for third amended judgment and the 

third amended judgment in April 2023. Aron Williams timely appeals.

II

[¶9] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in denying his motion to 

reopen the record to clarify Lyle Williams’s testimony about his lack of ability 

to perform the duties of a farmer and for him to present additional evidence 

relating to the pay and qualifications of a farmer in North Dakota. 

[¶10] Reopening the record is an evidentiary issue subject to the abuse of 

discretion standard. See Innis-Smith v. Smith, 2018 ND 34, ¶ 13, 905 N.W.2d 

914 (“District courts have broad discretion in allowing or refusing to allow a 

party, after having rested, to reopen the record to introduce additional 

evidence.”). “A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, 

unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies 

the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process 

leading to a reasoned decision.” Id.

[¶11] The district court concluded the record did not need to be reopened to 

include this additional evidence because Lyle Williams had already answered 

specific questions about Aron Williams’s duties involving farm management,

and the additional evidence was largely irrelevant. The court found Aron 

Williams had ample time to prepare his witness and present evidence of his job 

qualifications. Aron Williams does not argue that the proffered evidence could 

not have been presented at the time of the evidentiary hearing. See Vandal v. 

Leno, 2014 ND 45, ¶¶ 26-29, 843 N.W.2d 313 (concluding the district court did 
4

not err when it denied the motion to reopen the record because the evidence 

sought to be included could have been obtained earlier).

[¶12] Under the circumstances of this case, the district court’s findings are not 

arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable, nor did the court misinterpret or 

misapply the law in determining that reopening the record was not justified.

We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s

motion to reopen the record.

III

[¶13] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in calculating his income 

to determine his child support obligation. 

[¶14] Our standard of review for child support decisions is well established:

Child support determinations involve questions of law which are 

subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are 

subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in 

some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of 

discretion standard of review. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous 

if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists 

to support it, or if, on the entire record, we are left with a definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. 

Updike v. Updike, 2022 ND 99, ¶ 5, 974 N.W.2d 360 (quoting Schrodt v. 

Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 19, 971 N.W.2d 861). “The amount of child support 

calculated under the guidelines is rebuttably presumed to be the correct 

amount of child support in all child support determinations.” Thompson v. 

Johnson, 2018 ND 142, ¶ 9, 912 N.W.2d 315 (quotations omitted).

[¶15] Chapter 75-02-04.1, N.D. Admin. Code, governs child support 

determinations. Thompson, 2018 ND 142, ¶ 9. The district court must have 

sufficient reliable information relating to the obligor’s income in order to arrive 

at a proper child support calculation. Schurmann v. Schurmann, 2016 ND 69, 

¶ 20, 877 N.W.2d 20 (noting a district court cannot rely on inaccurate or 

incomplete information to arrive at a child support calculation); N.D. Admin. 

Code § 75-02-04.1-02(7) (“Income must be sufficiently documented through the 
5

use of tax returns, current wage statements, and other information to fully 

apprise the court of all gross income.”). If the obligor fails to provide reliable 

information regarding his gross income from earnings, and that information 

cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources, income must be imputed. 

N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6).

[¶16] Gross income includes salaries, wages, overtime wages, and income 

imputed based upon earning capacity. N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(4)(b). 

“‘Earnings’ includes in-kind income and amounts received in lieu of actual 

earnings, such as social security benefits, workers’ compensation wage 

replacement benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans’ benefits, 

and earned income tax credits . . . .” N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(1)(a). 

A

[¶17] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in considering his in-kind 

income and improperly relied on incredible testimony.

[¶18] In the order imputing income to Aron Williams, the district court made 

findings with respect to his total gross income from earnings, including his 

wage-related farming income and in-kind income. The court considered in-kind 

income, but found Aron Williams was not credible and the evidence presented 

by Jennifer Williams on in-kind income for his housing was not sufficient proof 

to determine his in-kind income for housing. This Court does not reweigh the 

evidence or reassess a witness’s credibility on appeal. Eberle v. Eberle, 2009 

ND 107, ¶ 26, 766 N.W.2d 477. The purpose of the district court’s finding on 

the amount of in-kind income was only to determine whether Aron Williams’s

total earned income of his wages and the proven in-kind income exceeded the 

income of a farmer. The court noted, “[H]is total earned income (wages plus inkind income) is lower than $107,300.00.”

[¶19] Aron Williams does not challenge the district court’s finding that he 

failed to provide reliable information about his gross income, specifically his

earned income reflected on his tax returns. Aron Williams only challenges the 

court’s finding on his in-kind income.
6

[¶20] The district court was required to consider the value of any in-kind 

income when determining an obligor’s gross income for purposes of calculating 

child support. See Schurmann, 2016 ND 69, ¶ 21; N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-

04.1-01(5) (defining “in-kind income”). Here, the court found Aron Williams did 

not provide reliable information regarding his earned and in-kind income.

[¶21] We conclude the district court did not misapply the law in considering 

Aron Williams’s in-kind income. We need not consider whether the court’s 

finding of total in-kind income is clearly erroneous because the issue is moot;

the court did not rely on the in-kind income to determine his gross income.

B

[¶22] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in relying on the North 

Dakota Job Service information because it was not a reliable source. 

[¶23] If the obligor fails to provide sufficient reliable information for 

determining his income, district courts must look to a source demonstrating 

statewide average earnings to determine the obligor’s income for child support 

calculations. See Edison v. Edison, 2023 ND 141, ¶ 40, 994 N.W.2d 151 (citing 

Schurmann, 2016 ND 69, ¶¶ 21, 22; Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 24) (“District 

courts must refer to a source demonstrating the average earnings for the entire 

state of North Dakota; evidence of average earnings for a different geographic 

area is insufficient. The statewide average earning reports published by Job 

Service of North Dakota are sufficient.”).

[¶24] Here, the district court relied on the Job Service report, which details 

North Dakota’s statewide average earnings. Aron Williams argues the court 

erred in relying on the Job Service report because it contains inaccurate 

information and, therefore, is an unreliable source to determine statewide 

average earnings. 

[¶25] At the evidentiary hearing, Aron Williams offered into evidence the Job 

Service report, which the district court accepted into evidence. The exhibit

included “farmers” within the “Management and Occupations” group and 
7

“farm laborers” within the “Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations” 

group and described the duties associated with each position.

[¶26] By offering the Job Service report into evidence to the district court

without challenging its validity, Aron Williams waived the argument about its 

reliability. See Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695, 702 (N.D. 1995) 

(concluding appellant’s failure to object to the use of financial documents he 

provided to the district court or challenge their validity prior to the appeal 

waived his evidentiary challenges). We conclude Aron Williams waived any

argument related to the accuracy of the Job Service report and, therefore, 

decline to further address the issue.

C

[¶27] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in categorizing him as a 

farmer because he lacked the qualifications for that position and the testimony 

provided showed “farm laborer” was a more applicable job title. 

[¶28] The Job Service report describes the job duties of “Farmers, Ranchers,

and Other Agricultural Managers” as follows: 

Plan, direct, or coordinate the management or operation of farms, 

ranches, greenhouses, aquacultural operations, nurseries, timber 

tracts, or other agricultural establishments. May hire, train, and 

supervise farm workers or contract for services to carry out the 

day-to-day activities of the managed operation. May engage in or 

supervise planting, cultivating, harvesting, and financial and 

marketing activities. 

The Job Service report describes the job duties of “Farmworkers and Laborers, 

Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse” as: 

Manually plant, cultivate, and harvest vegetables, fruits, nuts, 

horticultural specialties, and field crops. Use hand tools, such as 

shovels, trowels, hoes, tampers, pruning hooks, shears, and knives. 

Duties may include tilling soil and applying fertilizers; 

transplanting, weeding, thinning, or pruning crops; applying 

pesticides; or cleaning, grading, sorting, packing, and loading 
8

harvested products. May construct trellises, repair fences and 

farm buildings, or participate in irrigation activities. 

The district court found Aron Williams’s experience and duration of farming 

meant he was “qualified to plan, direct, or coordinate the management or 

operation of farms; to hire, train, and supervise farm workers; and to engage 

in or supervise planting, cultivating, harvesting, and financial activities,” and 

no evidence showed he performed the listed duties of a farmworker or laborer. 

[¶29] Based on the documents, testimony, and exhibits received, the district 

court found: Aron Williams had been farming for approximately 20 years when 

he met Jennifer Williams; he farmed his own land and engaged in a farming 

operation with his family; and he “seeded, combined, dug, fertilized, and 

sprayed on Lyle Williams’s and other family members’ land. No significant part 

(if any) of Aron’s activities involved manually planting, cultivating, or 

harvesting or using hand tools.” The court also found “the most reliable

evidence was that they (Lyle, Aron, and other family members) helped each 

other and the farming operation was a joint endeavor,” despite Lyle Williams’s

assertion that he simply instructed Aron Williams on what to do at the farm.

Considering the evidence presented, the court found Aron Williams performed 

the duties of a farmer.

[¶30] The evidence in the record supports the district court’s findings

categorizing Aron Williams as a farmer. Therefore, we conclude the court’s 

finding that Aron Williams was employed as a farmer is not clearly erroneous. 

D

[¶31] Aron Williams argues the district court erred by imputing income at 

100% of the farmer category, relying on N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(5). 

[¶32] Aron Williams’s reliance on N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(5) is 

misplaced as that provision applies to obligors who are self-employed. While 

Aron Williams’s tax returns reflected some income from self-employment, the 

majority of his income reflected on his tax returns was from other sources. Aron 

Williams did not argue to the district court that he was self-employed. 
9

[¶33] Under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6) (2022)1, the district court 

must impute income when the obligor fails to provide sufficient information to 

determine gross income, and must apply the method providing the greatest 

amount:

If the obligor fails, upon reasonable request made in any 

proceeding to establish or review a child support obligation, to 

furnish reliable information concerning the obligor’s gross income 

from earnings, and if that information cannot be reasonably 

obtained from sources other than the obligor, income must be 

imputed based on the greatest of: 

a. A monthly amount equal to one hundred sixty-seven times 

the hourly federal minimum wage. 

b. An amount equal to one hundred percent of this state’s 

statewide average earnings for persons with similar work 

history and occupational qualifications. 

c. An amount equal to one hundred percent of the obligor’s 

greatest average gross monthly earnings, in any twelve 

consecutive months included in the current calendar year 

and the two previous calendar years before commencement 

of the proceeding before the court, for which reliable 

evidence is provided.

[¶34] Because Aron Williams failed to provide sufficient reliable information 

about his income, the district court applied the greatest amount under section 

75-02-04.1-07(6), which was “[a]n amount equal to one hundred percent of this 

state’s statewide average earnings for persons with similar work history and 

occupational qualifications.” The state average income for a farmer in North 

Dakota is $107,300, according to the Job Service report. Based on the imputed 

income, and after deductions, the court found Aron Williams owed $1,842 per 

month in child support. The court’s calculation of Aron Williams’s child support 

obligation is supported by the record and the court correctly applied the law. 

1 Section 75-02-04.1-07(6), N.D. Admin. Code, was amended on July 1, 2023. The pre-July 2023 version

quoted here was the applicable guideline at the time of this action.
10

Therefore, the court did not err in finding Aron Williams owed $1,842 per 

month in child support.

IV

[¶35] Aron Williams argues the district court erred by awarding Jennifer 

Williams $4,185 in attorney’s fees. Aron Williams argues he made a good faith 

effort to comply with discovery requests; specifically, that he had supplemented 

discovery six times at the time of the third amended judgment, produced a 

substantial amount of financial information, and complied with 

interrogatories. Jennifer Williams argues the court did not abuse its discretion 

in awarding her attorney’s fees relating to the motion to compel under 

N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).

[¶36] Whether to award attorney’s fees, in conjunction with a discovery 

violation, is generally within the discretion of the district court, and this Court 

will not disturb a court’s decision unless the court abuses its discretion. Datz 

v. Dosch, 2014 ND 102, ¶ 22, 846 N.W.2d 724. If a motion to compel is granted, 

the court must require the party that necessitated the motion to pay the other 

party’s reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion, unless an 

exception applies. N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).

[¶37] The district court found Jennifer Williams made a good faith effort to 

resolve the discovery dispute, she had a sufficient basis to bring the motion to 

compel, and that Aron Williams avoided providing the requested documents. 

Aron Williams does not argue that an exception to awarding attorney’s fees 

applies. We conclude the court’s award of attorney’s fees is supported by the 

record. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Jennifer 

Williams attorney’s fees.

V

[¶38] We affirm the third amended judgment, the order denying Aron 

Williams’s motion to reopen the record, and award of attorney’s fees.
11

[¶39] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr