Opinion ID: 896359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Yeah, never got to go to college, it was always put on the back burner.

Text: . What do you think the Judge ought to be compensating you? . Well, I really don’t know. Monetary-wise I would like enough money to get going in school — $20,000.00, I guess to get going in school. The second day of trial, Coreen further testified: Q. Alright. What is your plan for your further education, what area are you looking at? . I’m going to finish and get my degree, you know, get an LPN and then occupational therapy. Q. Okay. And where — you’re not in school now, right? . No, I’m not. Q. And have you explored, or have you gone down to the — where would you go, would you got (sic) to what school would it be? . It would be the University of Great Falls and then they have a satellite program out of Havre for the LPN. Additional questions regarding Coreen’s further education were asked upon cross examination, as well. Coreen testified: Q. Okay. And then you want $20,000.00 from the court or from Mr. Schumacher to get yourself started and get yourself back going into school and that, correct? . Yes. . You’ve been separated now for four years? . Yes. . And during that four year period of time you never went back to school then? . No, I did not. [¶25] An issue which is not properly raised in the pleadings but is tried by the express or implied consent of the parties will be treated in all respects as having been raised in the pleadings. Check Control, Inc. v. Shepherd , 462 N.W.2d 644, 648 (N.D. 1990). N.D.R.Civ.P. 15(b) allows pleadings to be amended at any time to include issues not raised when those issues are tried by the express or implied consent of the parties. Fleck v. Jacques Seed Co. , 445 N.W.2d 649, 652 (N.D. 1989). Under Rule 15(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., a pleading may be amended impliedly, by the introduction of evidence which varies the theory of the case and which is not objected to by the opposing party. Id. [¶26] In Napoleon Livestock Auction, Inc. v. Rohrich , 406 N.W.2d 346, 357 (N.D. 1987), we stated “[i]mplied consent is established where the parties recognized that the issue entered the case at trial and acquiesced in the introduction of evidence on that issue.” Generally, a trial court’s decision whether an issue was tried by express or implied consent is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Id. We believe the record shows the issue of spousal support entered the case at trial. Kurt did not object to questions regarding the distribution of money for Coreen’s further education, but cross-examined Coreen on the issue the second day of trial. In view of the prenuptial agreement as to property, it is apparent Coreen was asking for spousal support. We, therefore, conclude the issue of rehabilitative spousal support was tried by the implied consent of the parties. [¶27] In a related argument, Kurt contends the district court’s spousal support award is not supported by the evidence in the record. [¶28] Rehabilitative spousal support can be awarded not only to assist a disadvantaged spouse to achieve educational goals, but also to enable the disadvantaged spouse to achieve suitable and appropriate self support. Duray v. Greenwood , 1999 ND 126, ¶ 9; Nefzger v. Nefzger , 1999 ND 119, ¶ 23. A trial court’s spousal support determination is treated as a finding of fact and will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Riehl v. Riehl , 1999 ND 107, ¶ 7. [¶29] In making a determination of spousal support, trial courts consider the Ruff- Fischer guidelines, with respect to both amount and duration . Id. at ¶ 8 (emphasis added). These 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. Id. While the trial court need not make specific findings as to each factor, we must be able to discern the trial court’s rationale for its determination. Id. [¶30] The trial court awarded Coreen rehabilitative spousal support in the amount of $500 per month for 10 years or until she remarries. The record reveals no basis for the duration or amount of the spousal support award to Coreen. In its Conclusions of Law, the district court appears to have applied the Ruff-Fischer guidelines in determining whether Coreen is entitled to rehabilitative spousal support. However, the evidence does not support the duration or amount of the award. [¶31] While we conclude there was sufficient notice to raise the issue, we reverse the district court’s award of rehabilitative spousal support and remand for further consideration of the duration and amount of the support. On remand, the trial court may receive further evidence on the issue of spousal support or may make further findings on the current record.