Opinion ID: 896323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nancy's Land

Text: [¶ 14] Dale contends the trial court erred in not including in the marital estate a quarter of land in which Nancy had an interest before the marriage. The land was sold in 1997 and Nancy received $11,000 for her interest in it. Nancy no longer owned the land at the time of trial and had spent much of the proceeds. The trial court did not specifically address Nancy's premarital interest in the land or her disposition of the proceeds of her share of its sale. [¶ 15] The financial status of divorcing parties, as it existed at the time of the commencement of the action, ordinarily should be maintained until the court has had an opportunity to appraise the evidence and determine the rights of the parties to the marital property, so, without a prior order of the court, neither party should dispose of or encumber marital property except in the normal course of business or personal affairs. We recognize a spouse will sometimes have an immediate need to cover expenses arising in the transition from married to single life, such as replacing household items, purchasing a car, or moving to another residence. We have often said, however, a disadvantaged spouse is not required to deplete her property distribution in order to live. Fox v. Fox, 1999 ND 68, ¶ 24, 592 N.W.2d 541. [¶ 16] Where a party transfers marital assets, resulting in dissipation of marital assets, inclusion of the value of the transferred assets in the dissipating party's share of the marital property distributed is an appropriate method of reaching an equitable property division in light of [that party's] economic fault. Halvorson v. Halvorson, 482 N.W.2d 869, 870-71 (N.D.1992). A party's dissipation of marital assets is a particularly relevant factor in arriving at an equitable distribution of the property. Id. at 871. The allocation of value of dissipated assets is to offset the improper disposition of those assets. Id. at 871. However, if a marital asset has been converted into other marital assets or to a reduction of marital debt, the mere fact that an asset has been in some way converted to another form does not necessarily mean the asset has been wasted or the net marital estate has been reduced. Linrud v. Linrud, 552 N.W.2d 342, 345 (N.D.1996). [¶ 17] Nancy and the parties' three children left the family home in February 1997. The trial was held in April 1998. Nancy introduced an exhibit showing she spent $8,697 paying bills, repaying debts, paying her daughter Danica for babysitting, buying clothes and furniture, paying her attorney, paying taxes, and making the down payment on a car, which the trial court awarded to her, along with its attendant debt. Nancy testified she used the balance of the $11,000 for buying clothes and food and whatever since I left Dale, odds and ends stuff. [¶ 18] In a post-trial brief, Dale said he does not contest Nancy's entitlement to the proceeds from the sale of her property in Mercer County, while contending, [l]ikewise, the three quarters must be excluded from any property division. In that brief, Dale also said he realizes that Nancy will have more immediate needs for personal property and the good car for taking care of the children. [¶ 19] Dale has not contended this was a case, like Bell v. Bell, 540 N.W.2d 602, 605 (N.D.1995), where one party to a marriage distributed to himself around 90 percent of all marital assets and then dissipated the assets without regard to his wife, his child, or any of the other children for whom he owes child support. The trial court found [n]othing indicates that the conduct of the parties materially affected the accumulation or distribution of marital property and [t]here are no other material factors affecting property distribution. Dale has failed to prove how any of the money was unaccounted for or inappropriately spent by Nancy. See Linrud v. Linrud, 1998 ND 55, ¶ 11, 574 N.W.2d 875. [¶ 20] We conclude the trial court did not err in failing to specifically include in the marital estate for distribution Nancy's premarital interest in land sold in 1997.