Opinion ID: 1745698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: property and alimony

Text: Shirley contends that awarding Kenneth the vast majority of the assets of the $132,000 net value of the parties was clearly erroneous. The trial court's determinations on matters of property division are treated as findings of fact and will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Dinius v. Dinius, 448 N.W.2d 210, 215 (N.D.1989). A finding of fact is determined to be clearly erroneous when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Dinius at 211; Bashus v. Bashus, 393 N.W.2d 748, 750 (N.D.1986). Section 14-05-24, N.D.C.C., provides in part that a court must make equitable distribution of the real and personal property of the parties as may seem just and proper. An equitable distribution need not be equal, but any substantial inequality must be explainable. Hecker v. Hecker, 448 N.W.2d 207, 208 (N.D.1989). The factors to be considered by a court in determining a fair and equitable distribution include: (a) the respective ages of the parties; (b) the parties' earning abilities; (c) the duration of the marriage and conduct of each of the parties during the marriage; (d) the parties' station in life; (e) the circumstances and necessities of each of the parties; (f) the parties' health and physical condition; (g) the parties' financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time of the marital dissolution, its value, its income-producing capacity (if any), and whether it was accumulated before or after the marriage; and, (h) other material matters. Volk v. Volk, 404 N.W.2d 495, 497 n. 1 (N.D.1987); See Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966); Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952). The trial court made the following relevant findings of fact in coming to its decision: IV. The Plaintiff [Kenneth] is 56 years of age, and the Defendant [Shirley] is 51 years of age. V. There is direct evidence of violent misconduct on the part of the Plaintiff, and circumstantial evidence of other misconduct on the part of the Defendant. VI. The Plaintiff does not have a high school education and has been a farmer all his life. His skills are in farming, cattle raising, and marketing. VII. The Defendant is a high school graduate, with one year of college. She has had employment as a waitress and carpenter, and has developed farming skills during the marriage. VIII. The Defendant has health problems, including an irregular heartbeat and undiagnosed lung problems, none of which appear to be disabling at this time. IX. The Plaintiff is suffering from multiple sclerosis, which is a progressive and debilitating disease. His ability to continue work is speculative and uncertain. X. The parties hereto have agreed the value of the land owned by them and acquired during the marriage is $252,000. The Court accepts the values of the Plaintiff relating to livestock, vehicles, farm machinery, guns, miscellaneous personal property and stock. The Court accepts the value of the Defendant relating to household furniture and furnishings. While there is a disparity in the value of the property distributed to the parties, Kenneth contends that the difference is offset by the alimony award of $72,000 given to Shirley. In the trial court's memorandum opinion, the alimony award is listed under the heading Distribution of Property. While contending that the alimony award was spousal support, Shirley concedes that the alimony award may very well have been part of the property distribution because the trial court did not otherwise address the disparity in the division. We have recognized that alimony may sometimes be used as part of a property division. Redlin v. Redlin, 436 N.W.2d 5, 8 (N.D.1989). However, we have also held that periodic cash payments without interest awarded as part of a property distribution must be discounted to present value in determining whether or not the distribution is equitable. Pankow v. Pankow, 371 N.W.2d 153, 154 (N.D.1985); Tuff v. Tuff, 333 N.W.2d 421, 424 (N.D.1983). In the case at hand, it appears the trial court took the $72,000 figure into account in attempting to fashion an equitable distribution. Assuming for sake of discussion purposes, that the trial court was attempting to use the alimony award to make an equitable property distribution, we are unable to determine whether or not such an award is equitable without a present value determination. We, therefore, must remand the case to the trial court for a determination of the present value of the monthly payments awarded to Shirley and to reassess the distribution in light of this value.