IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 231

Felice Renee Vassel, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Issac Cole Vassel, Defendant and Appellant

 and

State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20220143

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial 

District, the Honorable Paul W. Jacobson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Jacob D. Marburger (on brief), Williston, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Christene A. Reierson, Minot, ND, for defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

DECEMBER 22, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Vassel v. Vassel, et al.

No. 20220143

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Issac Vassel appeals from a district court’s divorce judgment entered 

following a bench trial. He argues the court erred by awarding Felice Vassel 

back child support and spousal support. We affirm.

I

[¶2] Issac Vassel and Felice Vassel were in a relationship in 2009 and

married in 2015. The parties have three minor children together, born in 2010, 

2012, and 2016. Felice Vassel attempted to commence an action for divorce in

or around September 2020. The summons and complaint were returned 

undeliverable. Felice Vassel filed a summons and complaint in North Dakota 

on October 15, 2020. Issac Vassel answered and filed a counterclaim on March 

15, 2021. A bench trial was held on March 1, 2022.

[¶3] Issac Vassel and Felice Vassel testified at trial. In January 2020, Issac 

Vassel left Felice Vassel and their three children in North Dakota to go to 

Texas for a better paying job laying fiber optics. Felice Vassel and the children 

planned to join him in Texas. However, in May 2020, Issac Vassel informed 

Felice Vassel he planned to leave her for another woman. Felice Vassel and the 

children traveled to Texas in July 2020 but returned to North Dakota shortly 

thereafter because Issac Vassel had not secured an apartment for them. 

[¶4] The parties have lived apart since January 2020 when Issac Vassel left 

for Texas. During this period, Felice Vassel cared and provided for the three 

children full-time. Felice Vassel also worked part-time and attended nursing 

school. She was earning approximately $2,200 per month and had expenses of 

$3,300 per month. Felice Vassel relied on food pantries to feed the children and 

lived in a two-bedroom apartment. Felice Vassel testified she alone provided

the children with incidentals such as birthday and Christmas presents or 

extracurricular activities. 
2

[¶5] Issac Vassel earned approximately $33,105 annually in 2021, resulting 

in net monthly income of $2,338 for purposes of child support. According to 

Issac Vassel’s Rule 8.2 Financial Statement dated May 24, 2021, his net 

monthly income was $2,442 and his expenses were $1,150 per month. Leading 

up to trial, he was able to cover his expenses and take several trips, including 

a vacation to the Bahamas. The court’s interim order required him to pay child 

support directly to Felice Vassel for the months of July and August 2021, and 

the interim child support obligation of $870 commenced on September 1, 2021. 

Issac Vassel paid the interim child support as ordered. Issac Vassel also made 

other payments to Felice Vassel for half the rent totaling $970. The final 

judgment reduced Issac Vassel’s child support obligation to $699 because of his 

additional dependent born after the parties’ separation.

[¶6] The district court ordered Issac Vassel to pay back child support in the 

amount of $12,080 for the period of April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021. The court 

reasoned Issac Vassel was responsible for contributing during this period 

because the children had been residing with and under Felice Vassel’s sole care

and custody while he was in Texas. The court also ordered Issac Vassel to pay 

$800 per month in spousal support for a period of 36 months. The court entered 

judgment accordingly. Issac Vassel appeals.

II

[¶7] Issac Vassel argues the district court erred by awarding Felice Vassel 

back child support because the award is not supported by the record.

[¶8] Section 14-09-08, N.D.C.C., places a duty upon parents to “give their 

children support and education suitable to the child’s circumstances,” and 

provides that a “court may compel either or both of the parents to provide for 

the support of their children.” Section 14-08.1-01, N.D.C.C., provides:

A person legally responsible for the support of a child under 

the age of eighteen years who is not subject to any subsisting court 

order for the support of the child and who fails to provide support, 

subsistence, education, or other necessary care for the child, 

regardless of whether the child is not or was not in destitute 

circumstances, is liable for the reasonable value of physical and 
3

custodial care or support which has been furnished to the child by 

any person, institution, agency, or human service zone. Any 

payment of public assistance money made to or for the benefit of 

any dependent child creates a presumption that such payment 

equals the reasonable value of physical and custodial care or 

support.

[¶9] “Any married person may maintain an action in the district court . . .

against the person’s spouse for failure on the spouse’s part to provide for . . . 

[t]he support of minor children by said husband or wife living with the party

bringing suit.” N.D.C.C. § 14-08-01. “[T]he district court has discretion to order 

past child support covering a period when the parties are separated but divorce 

proceedings are not pending under N.D.C.C. § 14-08.1-01.” Wilson v. Wilson, 

2014 ND 199, ¶ 14, 855 N.W.2d 105.

[¶10] A district court’s decision to award past child support is discretionary 

and will not be overturned on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion. 

Hagel v. Hagel, 2006 ND 181, ¶ 7, 721 N.W.2d 1. A court abuses its discretion 

when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, its 

decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned 

decision, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law. Kramer v. Kramer, 2006 ND 

64, ¶ 20, 711 N.W.2d 164. If the court provides no indication of the evidentiary 

and theoretical basis for its decision and the basis is not otherwise 

ascertainable in the record, we are left to speculate whether facts were properly 

considered and the law was properly applied leaving us unable to perform our 

appellate function. Clark v. Clark, 2005 ND 176, ¶ 9, 704 N.W.2d 847.

[¶11] Here, the district court gave a basis for its decision. In awarding back 

child support, the court explained:

The court is considering the child support amount of $870.00 

to commence as of April 1, 2020. Child support often commences 

on the date the obligor is served. There is a question as to when 

Issac was served in this matter. Issac had started a divorce action 

in Texas some time early 2020 and it appears that Felice tried to 

serve Issac divorce papers in North Dakota in October of 2020, but 

was unable to find him. One of the arguments for child support 

commencing when the obligor is served is so the obligor is not 
4

blindsided by a large amount of arrearages. The idea is that the 

obligor knows he or she is going to be owing child support when he 

or she is served. In this case, Issac started a divorce in early 2020, 

and so he knew that child support was going to need to be paid. 

The exact date Felice was served was not given, but from her 

testimony, Felice was served sometime between February and 

April of 2020. Issac had also already been having an affair for some 

time before then and had decided that he was going to leave Felice. 

The children resided with Felice, and Felice had to provide for the 

children[.] It is therefore appropriate that Issac’s child support 

obligation commence April 1, 2020.

[¶12] Issac Vassel argues the district court’s findings are not supported by the 

record. He further argues the award for back child support should be for the 

months of March, April, May and June 2021, which was when Issac was put 

on notice that his child support was an issue through establishment of the 

interim order. 

[¶13] Issac Vassel filed his answer and counterclaim in March 2021. Issac

Vassel moved for an interim order on May 24, 2021, requesting primary 

residential responsibility for the three children and for Felice Vassel to pay 

child support. On June 30, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated agreement for

the interim order. The order was signed on July 1, 2021, awarding Felice 

Vassel primary residential responsibility and ordering Issac Vassel to pay 

Felice Vassel $870 on July 1 and August 1, 2021, and regular child support 

payments of $870 per month to commence on September 1, 2021. The issue of 

back child support prior to July 1, 2021 was specifically reserved in the parties’ 

stipulated interim order. 

[¶14] Felice Vassel concedes the testimony at trial was that the Texas divorce 

action was commenced in the summer of 2020, not early 2020 as the district 

court found. Regardless of that minor factual error, the remaining findings 

support the award. The district court adequately explained its decision 

awarding Felice Vassel back child support. Issac Vassel left the children in the 

sole care and custody of Felice Vassel beginning in January 2020. He 

admittedly separated from the marriage in May 2020. Whether Issac Vassel 

intended to leave the marriage or not, he was separated from his family and 
5

did little to support the children after March 2020. Issac Vassel did not begin

making child support payments until July 2021, when it was court ordered.

The district court ordered Issac Vassel pay back child support in the amount 

of $12,080 for the period of April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021. Issac Vassel testified 

he paid $970 to Felice Vassel for half of the apartment rent. He was credited 

$970 by the court before arriving at the final back payment amount of $12,080. 

The court has discretion to order past child support covering a period when the 

parties were separated but divorce proceedings were not pending, which was 

the case here. Wilson, 2014 ND at ¶ 14. The court’s decision is supported by 

the record. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded 

Felice Vassel back child support beginning April 1, 2020.

III

[¶15] Issac Vassel argues the district court erred by awarding Felice Vassel 

spousal support because Felice Vassel does not need spousal support, and Issac 

Vassel does not have the ability to pay.

[¶16] District courts may award spousal support under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1. 

“When determining whether to award spousal support, ‘the court must 

consider the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the needs of the spouse seeking support, 

and the ability of the other spouse to pay.’” Quamme v. Quamme, 2021 ND 208, 

¶ 14, 967 N.W.2d 452 (quoting Willprecht v. Willprecht, 2020 ND 77, ¶ 40, 941 

N.W.2d 556). The Ruff-Fischer factors include:

The respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the 

duration of the marriage and conduct of the parties during the 

marriage, their station in life, the circumstances and necessities of 

each, their health and physical condition, their financial 

circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time, its 

value at the time, its income-producing capacity, if any, whether 

accumulated before or after the marriage, and such other matters 

as may be material.

Orwig v. Orwig, 2021 ND 33, ¶ 35, 955 N.W.2d 34 (citation omitted). Although 

the court is not required to make specific findings on each Ruff-Fischer factor, 

we must be able to determine the reasons for the court’s decision. Quamme, 
6

2021 ND at ¶ 14. The court is not required to provide a “complete calculation 

of each parties’ assets, debts, and expenses, but ‘a clear description of the 

financial situation of each party is helpful for this Court to understand the 

court’s rationale in awarding spousal support.’” Id. (quoting Willprecht, 2020 

ND at ¶ 11).

[¶17] “Rehabilitative spousal support is awarded to equalize the burdens of 

divorce” or to restore a spouse to independent status by providing the spouse 

“an opportunity to acquire an education, training, work skills, or experience to 

become self-supporting.” Rhodenbaugh v. Rhodenbaugh, 2019 ND 109, ¶ 14, 

925 N.W.2d 742. Decisions on spousal support are findings of fact reviewed 

under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. A finding of fact is clearly 

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

to support it, or if, after review of the entire record, we are left with a definite 

and firm conviction a mistake has been made. Holm v. Holm, 2017 ND 96, ¶ 4, 

893 N.W.2d 492.

[¶18] The district court analyzed the Ruff-Fischer factors and found the factors 

heavily favored Felice Vassel. The court found Felice Vassel needs spousal 

support and Issac Vassel has the ability to pay. The court ordered Issac Vassel 

to pay Felice Vassel $800 per month in spousal support for 36 months. 

[¶19] The court discussed the difference between the parties’ circumstances 

and needs. The court found Felice Vassel has been the sole provider and 

caregiver for the children since January 2020. She has expenses of roughly 

$3,200 a month and income of $2,200 a month. She lives in a two-bedroom 

apartment with the three children and often has to go to food pantries to ensure 

everyone is fed. The court found Felice Vassel needs spousal support because 

she is currently in nursing school, taking care of the children, and unable to 

work full time. The court’s findings are supported by the evidence. Moreover, 

rehabilitative spousal support provides an opportunity to acquire an education, 

training, work skills, or experience to become self-supporting. Rhodenbaugh, 

2019 ND at ¶ 14.
7

[¶20] On the other hand, the court found Issac Vassel’s expenses include his 

car, car insurance, phone bill, miscellaneous household expenses, and child 

support. He had few living expenses because he lived with his girlfriend and 

their child and she pays the expenses. The court found Issac Vassel has a much 

higher earning ability than Felice Vassel, and has chosen to earn less than he 

is able because he wants to stay with his girlfriend. The court found Issac 

Vassel has the ability to pay because his expenses are minimal and he does not 

have a rent payment. The court’s findings are supported by the evidence.

[¶21] Issac Vassel argues he is living paycheck to paycheck and, therefore, 

does not have the ability to pay. A review of the record shows, according to his 

own financial affidavit, his current monthly income was $2,442, and his 

monthly expenses totaled $1,150. His listed monthly expenses included $500

per month in rent or a house payment which he admitted at trial no longer 

existed because his girlfriend bought a home for which he does not have to 

make payments. His child support payments or his share of the daycare were 

not included in his monthly expenses. After deducting $500 per month for rent, 

adding $838 for child support and back child support, and adding $100 per 

month for daycare, Issac Vassel’s monthly expenses would be $1,588 per 

month. Adding spousal support of $800 per month increases his monthly 

expenses to $2,388, still less than his monthly income of $2,442, which also 

allows him some leeway to pay his share of the children’s medical expenses if 

they arise. The court awarded spousal support for a period of 36 months, which

is supported by the law.

IV

[¶22] The judgment is affirmed.

[¶23] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte