Opinion ID: 896905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: [¶ 17] The second issue on appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction sufficient to modify the original spousal support order. This is a question of law, and therefore fully reviewable by this Court. See Allied Mutual Ins. Co. v. Director of North Dakota Department of Transportation, 1999 ND 2, ¶ 5 n. 1, 589 N.W.2d 201. [¶ 18] This Court has explained [i]f trial courts find no immediate need for awarding permanent spousal support, they should retain jurisdiction to do so beyond a temporary award, when facing uncertainty about the need for permanent support thereby leaving the award open for later modification. van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93, 101 (N.D.1994). [¶ 19] When there has been an initial award of spousal support, however, the trial courts retain jurisdiction and may modify the award [a]t least as long as spousal support continues. See Quamme v. Bellino, 540 N.W.2d 142, 147 (N.D.1995). If circumstances merit, before the rehabilitative spousal support ends, [one] may apply for further spousal support, or for reservation of jurisdiction over the issue. Id. [¶ 20] In the present case the trial court did not retain jurisdiction within the divorce decree, nor is spousal support currently being paid. Under these facts the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify the spousal support payments at this late date. [¶ 21] The order denying the motion is affirmed. [¶ 22] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., DALE V. SANDSTROM and WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, JJ., concur.