Opinion ID: 898572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: rehabilitative spousal support

Text: [¶ 42] The district court's award of rehabilitative spousal support should also be reversed because the court misapplied the law when it only gave Lois Pearson enough spousal support so that she could achieve a minimal level of self-sufficiency. [¶ 43] In the district court's conclusions of law, it stated it was awarding Lois Pearson twenty-four months of temporary rehabilitative spousal support and that period should be sufficient for Lois Pearson to complete her vocational rehabilitation and educational efforts. The district court then stated, hopefully, thereafter [she can] obtain gainful employment which will allow her to become self-sustaining without the need for further financial assistance from [Robert Pearson]. The district court's award is contrary to our law in that it is not equitable and not supported by the evidence or its own findings. The Majority declines to apply this Court's well-settled equitable approach to rehabilitative spousal support and its repeated rejection of the minimalist doctrine. See DeMers v. DeMers, 2006 ND 142, ¶ 22, 717 N.W.2d 545 (explaining that this Court rejects the minimalist doctrine); Shields, 2003 ND 16, ¶ 13, 656 N.W.2d 712 (explaining that this Court uses the equitable approach as opposed to the minimalist doctrine); McDowell v. McDowell, 2001 ND 176, ¶ 12, 635 N.W.2d 139 (explaining that this Court has rejected the minimalist doctrine and uses the equitable approach); Fox, 2001 ND 88, ¶ 24, 626 N.W.2d 660 (adopting an equitable approach to rehabilitative spousal support); Riehl, 1999 ND 107, ¶ 12, 595 N.W.2d 10 (using an equitable approach rather than the minimalist doctrine). In Entitlements to Spousal Support After Divorce, Professor Marcia O'Kelly explained the different concepts behind rehabilitative spousal support: There are actually two different concepts of rehabilitative maintenance. One, a minimalist doctrine, intends that support for a short period of time be used to attain financial independence at any economic level. The premise of minimalist rehabilitation is that the disadvantage of divorce is the loss to the economically dependent person of the continuing support of the spouse.... [Spousal support's] purpose is served when the recipient attains sufficient training, retraining, or experience for minimal self-sufficiency. .... A more equitable concept of rehabilitative support, however, tries to provide education, training, or experience that will enable the disadvantaged spouse to obtain suitable and appropriate self-support by improving her employment skills. Suitability is in part determined by the interests and potential skills of the person needing rehabilitation. The standard of living established by the parties during their marriage may also be relevant, as it can be taken as an expression of what needs and levels of consumption they themselves have thought appropriate. .... Equitable rehabilitation, beyond minimal self-sufficiency, is intended to mitigate a marital disadvantage that is perceived as having been caused not so much by the fact of divorce as by the impact at divorce of an economic role assumed during marriage. That economic role may not have left one spouse totally incapable of self-support, but has left him or her in a less advantageous position as a wage earner than that person would have been in had there been no marriage. O'Kelly, supra, at 242-44. [¶ 44] Professor O'Kelly's explanation of the concepts behind rehabilitative spousal support are interwoven throughout our case law and provide guidance on how the district court's rehabilitative spousal support award in this case violates our law. The district court's twenty-four-month award, given out of the hope that Lois Pearson will be self-sustaining is not in accordance with our law that rejects the minimalist doctrine. Under North Dakota case law, Lois Pearson is not to be left in a place where she can be minimally self-sustaining, while Robert Pearson enjoys a salary that is four times larger than hers, with benefits and bonuses. The district court failed to consider the unequal burdens which the divorce has placed upon the parties. Robert Pearson's life will go on as it was before the divorce; Lois Pearson's life is economically devastated. [¶ 45] We have described the purpose of rehabilitative support in terms of enabling a disadvantaged spouse to achieve `suitable' and `appropriate' self-support. Heley, 506 N.W.2d at 720. We have also stated that [p]ermanent support is not limited to a spouse who is incapable of any rehabilitation, but may be awarded to a spouse incapable of adequate rehabilitation or self-support. Gronland v. Gronland, 527 N.W.2d 250, 253 (N.D.1995) (emphasis added). Merely self-sustaining is not the same as achieving suitable and appropriate self-support. Just because Lois Pearson may achieve a minimal level of self-support does not mean she has been adequately rehabilitated. See Van Klootwyk, 1997 ND 88, ¶ 16, 563 N.W.2d 377; Weir v. Weir, 374 N.W.2d 858, 864 (N.D. 1985). A spouse's need is not limited to the prevention of destitution. Wahlberg v. Wahlberg, 479 N.W.2d 143, 145 (N.D.1992); LaVoi, 505 N.W.2d at 387. [¶ 46] We have further explained that when considering what is suitable and appropriate self-support, this Court is to consider continuing that spouse's standard of living, balancing the burdens created by the divorce, the parties' disparate earning capacities, and the liquidity and income-producing nature of the property received in the divorce. See Wahlberg v. Wahlberg, 479 N.W.2d 143, 145 (N.D.1992). Thus, it is not enough that Lois Pearson may, assuming she is able to find a job where she earns what she is currently earning, have enough to sustain herself. Lois Pearson is entitled to a suitable and appropriate lifestyle, after the court takes into consideration her lifestyle before the divorce, the lifestyle Robert Pearson will enjoy post-divorce, the gap between the parties' incomes, and the minimal income-producing property she received in the marriage. I am not implying that Lois Pearson is entitled to one-half of Robert Pearson's income. A district court is not required to equalize the income between divorcing spouses, although the court may under the appropriate circumstances. See Christian v. Christian, 2007 ND 196, ¶ 11, 742 N.W.2d 819 (Although equalization of income between divorcing spouses is not a goal or measure of spousal support, it is a factor that can be considered.); see also Glander v. Glander, 1997 ND 192, ¶¶ 17, 18, 569 N.W.2d 262 (affirming the equalization of income between divorcing spouses under the circumstances); Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶ 17, 660 N.W.2d 586 (While we have not endorsed the equalization of income between divorcing spouses as a measure of spousal support, a difference in earning power is a proper factor for consideration in prescribing spousal support. (citations omitted)); Christianson v. Christianson, 2003 ND 186, ¶ 20, 671 N.W.2d 801 (holding equalization of income is a factor that may be considered when awarding spousal support). Robert Pearson's income, earning capacity, and standard of living post-divorce is relevant when evaluating whether he has shared in balancing the burdens of this divorce. See Mahoney, 1997 ND 149, ¶ 28, 567 N.W.2d 206. The district court's order reflects that it recognized all of the facts supporting a suitable and appropriate standard of living for Lois Pearson, but it declined to award support commensurate with the facts. [¶ 47] Additionally, even if the district court did not err in only awarding Lois Pearson enough spousal support to sustain herself, it clearly erred in concluding Lois Pearson would be able to sustain herself. The district court's finding that Lois Pearson will need additional training just to obtain comparable paying employment to her prior job at her husband's business supports her inability to sustain herself. In addition, the district court did not award her any money to pay for further education. It is unclear what the district court expected her to live on if she used the spousal support for her education. Even if Lois Pearson is able to achieve the amount she earned at her husband's business after completing a two-year horticulture program, there is no evidence she will earn enough to pay her expenses. Lois Pearson earned approximately $28,250 annually at her husband's business. The district court found that both parties would have to cut expenses after the divorce. It stated, both parties will have to have a `no frill' monthly budget of approximately $3,000.00 post-divorce. However, even if Lois Pearson is able to be rehabilitated to her prior earning level, she will be earning only $2,354.16 a month before taxes from her employment. Thus, the district court's hope of Lois Pearson being rehabilitated to earn what she had earned at her husband's business will still leave her unable to survive on a no frill budget. I decline to even speculate as to how Lois Pearson will survive if she is unable to resume her $28,250 a year income. The evidence and the district court's findings reflect that Lois Pearson will not be able to sustain herself on a no frill budget, even if she finds another job at the end of two years that can pay her as much as she currently makes. Thus, the district court's award of only rehabilitative spousal support is inadequate and should be modified. [¶ 48] Furthermore, the district court has not adequately explained why it chose to award rehabilitative spousal support for twenty-four months. After reviewing the district court's findings, the Majority, at ¶ 13, acknowledges that the district court's finding that the gap between the parties earning capacity will never be ... much closer seems to contradict the district court's ultimate award of rehabilitative spousal support. However, the Majority in a conclusory sentence states that we understand the basis for the district court's findings and conclusion for awarding rehabilitative spousal support for twenty-four months. The only explanation the district court gave for such a short-term award was that [t]he 24 month period should be sufficient for [Lois Pearson] to complete her vocational rehab/educational efforts and, hopefully, thereafter obtain gainful employment which will allow her to become self-sustaining without the need for further financial assistance from [Robert Pearson]. The record is devoid of any evidence that Lois Pearson could be self-sustaining in two years, let alone adequately self-sustaining. Further, there is no evidence Lois Pearson will be able to complete her education and training within twenty-four months of the divorce judgment. [¶ 49] Lois Pearson testified she did not know if or when she would go back to school, where she would go, the cost of a program, and how much, if any, she would increase her earning capacity by a degree. Furthermore, her testimony establishes she will be unable to complete a program within two years from the divorce judgment or the start of her spousal support which was November 1, 2008. She testified she will be staying in Grand Forks for the rest of the year and then may move to Washington. She testified that finances would prohibit her from beginning a program in Grand Forks and then transferring to a program in Washington. Thus, the evidence shows she will not be able to complete a program within the twenty-four-month period given by the district court to be rehabilitated. See Smith, 326 N.W.2d at 700-702 (writing for the majority, Justice Vande Walle modified the duration and amount of rehabilitative spousal support from two and one-half years at $100 per month to four years at $200 per month, holding the evidence did not support the spouse could complete her degree in two and one-half years). Additionally, if the temporary spousal support was awarded to allow Lois Pearson to return to school, the award did not consider the costs of completing a horticulture program. When Lois Pearson was questioned about the potential of completing a two-year horticulture program, she testified that she expected her monthly expenses would be $4,000 post-divorce, and she did not include any school expenses in her projected monthly expenses. With Lois Pearson's expected earnings of $10 an hour, the $600 a month she will receive from the interest on the promissory note, and the $1,400 a month in spousal support, Lois Pearson would be earning approximately $3,700 a month before taxes, as compared to Robert Pearson's gross income plus bonus of $8,150 per month less $1,400 spousal support or $6,750 per month. The district court's award to Lois Pearson of spousal support for twenty-four months so she can complete a two-year horticulture degree to enable her to earn what she is presently earning at Robert Pearson's business fails to consider her educational costs and the likelihood she will not be able to continue full-time employment while undertaking the degree. There must be some economic reality to the court's decision. The evidence in this record does not support that Lois Pearson can even retrain to independent economic status in two years. The vocational rehabilitation specialist was of the opinion that, if Lois Pearson remained in Grand Forks obtaining a horticulture degree, it would not make a difference in her earning capacity and, if she moved to another location, it would make only a slight difference. The district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are contradictory and its conclusions of law are not supported by its findings. III [¶ 50] The district court expressly retained jurisdiction over the spousal support issue for two years. The Majority, at ¶ 13, appears somewhat assuaged by the district court's retention of jurisdiction. I write separately on this issue to express that the district court's retention of jurisdiction before termination of the spousal support is a misapprehension of our law. [¶ 51] As we explained in Sommer, 2001 ND 191, ¶ 17, 636 N.W.2d 423, A trial court's power to modify an award of spousal support is statutory and is not dependent upon any express reservation of continuing jurisdiction in the divorce judgment. Section 14-05-24.1, N.D.C.C., governs spousal support. It provides, in relevant portion, The court may modify its spousal support orders. A majority of this Court has held that a district court has the power, without expressly retaining it, to modify a spousal support award within the duration of the spousal support award. Bellefeuille v. Bellefeuille, 2001 ND 192, ¶ 19, 636 N.W.2d 195. Thus, the district court's statement that it would retain jurisdiction over the spousal support issue is not a retention of jurisdiction beyond that already provided for by N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1 and our case law. In this case, the district court would be retaining jurisdiction if it reserved jurisdiction beyond the two-year spousal support period. [¶ 52] Even if the court's statement that it retained jurisdiction was a correct statement of the law, the Majority, by affirming the district court's award of an inadequate spousal support award so that hopefully the receiving spouse will eventually be able to obtain sustaining employment, leaves district courts, attorneys, and parties in confusion as to the state of our law. This Court should not excuse a district court's erroneous view of our well-established spousal support law by one-sentence in its order that requires Lois Pearson to return to court and request more support during the twenty-four months she is receiving support. An expressed reservation of continuing jurisdiction that the district court possessed regardless does not remedy a misapprehension of the law. The present award does not even give Lois Pearson enough time to complete a two-year degree and find a job before requiring a motion for modification of spousal support. The district court's misapprehension of the law has doomed Lois Pearson to meet Robert Pearson again in the courtroom before the end of two years and has cast upon the party with the least economic ability the burden she has already borne and proven in this case. [¶ 53] Furthermore, the district court is requiring that Lois Pearson prove within two years of its judgment that which she proved at the divorce trial. I am left questioning why she should be forced to bear this burden yet again. Lois Pearson requested permanent spousal support of $3,000, and she made her case to support that request. She established that she gave up opportunities in her twenty-eight-year marriage. Lois Pearson testified she did not complete college as a result of the marriage and spent a considerable portion of the marriage caring for the children and working various part-time jobs. Lois Pearson testified that as the children grew older, she worked for her husband's business. Lois Pearson established she was fifty years of age at the time of the divorce, would almost certainly lose her job at her husband's business, and did not possess the requisite skills to enable her to obtain a new job at the same wage. She also testified that even if she was able to acquire a comparable paying job, she would still be earning approximately thirty-five percent of Robert Pearson's earnings. She established that, in addition to that wide disparity in earning capacities, Robert Pearson also received yearly bonuses, and in 2007, Robert Pearson's bonus was $16,000. Lois Pearson proved that the parties' earning capacities would be even more disparate after the divorce because losing her job at her husband's business would result in a drastic pay cut. Lois Pearson made her case by hiring a vocational expert who established that post-divorce she can expect to earn $10.00 an hour. A $10.00 per hour job means Lois Pearson will earn $20,800 a year. Based on this wage, her post-divorce earning capacity will be twenty-six percent of Robert Pearson's. Again, this excludes any bonuses Robert Pearson may receive. Furthermore, the district court's findings make it clear that it does not expect that anything will change with respect to the parties' financial circumstances, except that Lois Pearson's earning capacity would likely decrease after the divorce. The district court found the gap between the parties' earning capacity would  never be ... much closer. (Emphasis added.) These findings prove Lois Pearson made her case for permanent spousal support. Despite establishing her case, the district court, and the Majority, appear content with requiring her to put forth a prima facie case once again. [¶ 54] The Majority's willingness to impose such an additional financial burden on Lois Pearson is even more disturbing considering the expenses she incurred at the original divorce trial. The record reflects that Lois Pearson's attorney's fees for the initial divorce were $12,986.50, costs for the trial were $1,826.98, and expenses for the vocational expert were $1,580.55. To require Lois Pearson, the disadvantaged spouse who earns approximately one-fourth of what her husband earns, to incur additional expenses to re-prove a case she has already established for permanent spousal support, is unfathomable to me. Rather than make the disadvantaged spouse re-prove a case for permanent support, our case law provides that the supporting spouse may move for a reduction in spousal support if he or she establishes a material change in circumstances. See Sommer, 2001 ND 191, ¶ 18, 636 N.W.2d 423. [¶ 55] Any other result turns the clock back on marriage as a partnership, on the value of the contributions of a homemaker and primary caregiver to children, and on the value of a spouse's contributions to another spouse's career and business during their marriage. IV [¶ 56] I am of the opinion that the district court erred in misapplying our law on spousal support to the facts of this case, and I am left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. I would reverse and remand, directing the district court to enter an appropriate award of permanent spousal support and enter an award that will provide Lois Pearson more than just a minimal level of self-sufficiency. [¶ 57] Mary Muehlen Maring