Court Opinion

ID: 9736112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:44:15.249574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.455784
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice
concurring specially.
While I concur in both the rationale and result of the majority opinion, I write specially to express my disagreement with that portion of Pankow 1 which directed the trial court to consider:
“the fact that, if historical trends continue, the value of the [farm] land will substantially increase over the 25-year period, whereas the buying power of Joan’s $575 monthly installments will substantially decrease. It is likely that the current disparity between the values of the property awarded to August and Joan may grow even wider in the future, and the district court should consider this fact when it reviews the property division.” Pankow v. Pankow, 347 N.W.2d 566 at 569 (N.D.1984).
I believe that the historical trend of farmland’s steadily appreciating value had undergone a startling metamorphosis at the time the opinion was written and that if a new trend were even yet discernible it was not one justifying the conclusion that the land would steadily appreciate. The future value of the land is, to say the least, unpredictable, given present economic conditions. Without expert testimony, prognostication of future land values based on present conditions, is sheer speculation and is not an exercise we should foist upon a trial court burdened with the responsibility of making a presently equitable division of property.
Obviously, the trial court took heed of the faulty instruction. In my view, because it is erroneous and misleading, it should be disavowed.
MESCHKE, J., concurs.