Court Opinion

ID: 9514095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:21.785525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:11.799083
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 20] I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
[¶ 21] Roxann and Harold Tweeten were married November 3, 1990, and a partial judgment granting the parties’ divorce was entered May 9, 2007. The final judgment of divorce was entered November 18, 2008. The patties have four minor children, whose custody was awarded to Roxann Tweeten, and who live in the marital home located on the Tweeten property.
[¶ 22] In the trial court, Harold Tweet-en took the position that the parties’ Ante-nuptial Agreement should be enforced and govern the distribution of the Tweeten property and the L Ranch property, because he held an option to purchase the Tweeten property and, thus, there was full disclosure. He took the same position on appeal; however, in the alternative he claimed the trial court’s property distribution was disproportionate as a whole when the value of the L Ranch is considered.
[¶ 23] In the trial court, Roxann Tweeten took the position that the parties’ Antenuptial Agreement was not enforceable, because Harold Tweeten failed to provide a truthful and accurate disclosure of his assets. ' Roxann Tweeten took the same position on appeal. Both parties agree the trial court did not apply the Antenuptial Agreement’s terms to the Tweeten property in its distribution of the parties’ property. Harold Tweeten, however, appears to be arguing on appeal that the trial court applied the Antenuptial Agreement’s terms to the L Ranch property. I disagree based on my reading of the trial court’s entire Amended Memorandum and Order dated October 2, 2008, the Final Judgment of Divorce, and the remainder of the record of this case.
*601[¶ 24] Although the trial court did not use the specific words “I find the Antenup-tial Agreement unconscionable,” it did make specific findings which read together indicate this conclusion of law.
[¶ 25] Our Court has held that one party’s “failure to provide truthful and accurate financial information to [the other party] prior to [the other party] entering the premarital agreement is sufficient ground to render it unenforceable.” Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 2002 ND 72, ¶ 20, 644 N.W.2d 197; see N.D.C.C. § 14-03.1-07 (“Not withstanding the other provisions of this chapter, if a court finds that the enforcement of a premarital agreement would be clearly unconscionable, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement, enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provisions, or limit the application of an unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable result.”). “Even if a premarital agreement has been voluntarily entered, the substantive enforceability of it is a matter of law to be decided by the court.” Peters-Riemers, at ¶ 20. The district court in the present case found:
In the Antenuptial Agreement, Harold indicated that he owned 720 acres of farmland with buildings. However, the evidence at trial indicated that one month prior to the marriage, Harold had signed an option to purchase the farmland from his parents and that the farmland was not actually purchased until after the marriage. His parents sold the property for $100,000, which was less than the fair market value.
After finding that Harold Tweeten had not been truthful in his disclosure of his assets, the trial court next proceeded to determine the marital estate and to equitably divide it according to the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and the law. Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952); Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966). The court found in its order:
Based upon the foregoing, the Court determines that the value of the marital property is as agreed to by the parties in the 8.3 Statement, a copy of which is attached hereto....
Having determined the value of the marital assets, the Court determines that an equitable division of the parties’ property and debts would be as follows ....
(Emphasis added.) The parties prepared a joint property and debt listing or Rule 8.3, N.D.R.Ct. Statement. It includes both the Tweeten land and the L Ranch land. The trial court, therefore, included both properties in its determination of the total marital estate. Our Court has held that “[a]ll of the real and personal property accumulated by the parties ..., regardless of the source must be included in the marital estate to be divided by the trial court.” Bladow v. Bladow, 2003 ND 123, ¶ 6, 665 N.W.2d 724 (citations omitted); see Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58, ¶ 11, 746 N.W.2d 732. “We have repeatedly held that separate property, whether inherited or otherwise, must initially be included in the marital estate.” Bladow, at ¶ 6 (citations omitted). Here, the trial court having decided the Antenuptial Agreement did not control, determined that the marital estate included all the property of the parties whatever the source.
[¶ 26] We have held that a property distribution need not be equal to be equitable, but a disparity that is substantial must be explained. Fox v. Fox, 1999 ND 68, ¶ 7, 592 N.W.2d 541. The trial court awarded Roxann Tweeten more of the marital estate than Harold Tweeten. It awarded her the L Ranch property, which it found:
[W]as listed in the Antenuptial Agreement as property that was to belong to *602Roxann. Roxann testified that the property was placed in joint tenancy during the marriage for financing purposes and that the parties did not intend to alter the provisions of the Antenuptial Agreement regarding the distribution of the property. A substantial portion of the debt against the property was paid by Game and Fish lease which substantially impairs the income producing capability of the property until 2023. Although payment of the remaining debt against the L Ranch property was made in 2005 from proceeds from the sale of a portion of the Tweeten property, Rox-ann contributed $50,000 toward the $100,000 purchase price of the Tweeten property in 1991 and also contributed to the upkeep and value of that property during the course of marriage.
The trial court also awarded Roxann Tweeten that portion of the Tweeten property, which includes the farmstead and the marital residence where she and the four minor children live. The remainder of the Tweeten property was divided equally between Roxann Tweeten and Harold Tweet-en. We have held that the origin of the property is one factor for the court to consider under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. Bladow, 2003 ND 123, ¶ 8, 665 N.W.2d 724. “We have never held that property brought into a marriage or acquired by gift or inheritance by one spouse must be irrevocably set aside to that spouse.” Id.
[¶ 27] In the present case, the trial court explained its division of the marital estate. It found Roxann Tweeten had brought the L Ranch into the marriage as a part of her inheritance following her first husband’s death. It found that the lease payment of $160,000 from Game and Fish paid off a substantial portion of the debt against the property. The court noted, however, that the L Ranch property was not profitable, that the twenty-year lease restricts the use of the property until the year 2023, and the income-producing capacity of the property was substantially impaired. The trial court found that Rox-ann Tweeten contributed $50,000 of her premarital property toward the $100,000 purchase price of the Tweeten property and also contributed to the upkeep and value of that property during the course of the marriage. The record establishes that the second contract for deed on the Tweet-en property was paid off during the marriage. The trial court noted that an equal division of the Tweeten property would result in each party receiving equal income-producing capacity or rental value. The court found both parties were currently employed in manual labor type positions and not likely to earn much more; that Roxann Tweeten was living with the parties’ four children in the parties’ rural marital home and Harold Tweeten was living in a used mobile home. The trial court found Harold Tweeten had admitted to infidelity during the marriage, which led up to the breakup of the marriage. This Court has long recognized that both economic and non-economic fault are factors the trial court may consider in dividing marital property. Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2001 ND 124, ¶ 17, 629 N.W.2d 573. The trial court concluded no monthly amount of spousal support would be awarded stating: “The Court awarded Roxann a greater share of the marital assets in the property distribution in lieu of a separate award of spousal support.” We have held that questions of property division and spousal support should be examined and dealt with together. Marschner v. Marschner, 2001 ND 4, ¶ 13, 621 N.W.2d 339. The evidence in the record supports the trial court’s findings, and the findings support its conclusions of law. The trial court did not err in concluding that the Antenuptial Agreement was not enforceable, and the trial *603court did not err in its equitable division of the parties’ marital estate.
[¶ 28] I would affirm the final judgment of divorce.
[¶ 29] Mary Muehlen Maring