Court Opinion

ID: 9513512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:37:06.718635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:53.617445
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 17] Because the majority opinion mischaracterizes the evidentiary record and obscures the district court’s rationale, thus avoiding a significant public policy question, I concur only in the result.
[¶ 18] The majority, at ¶ 10, says fluctuation in Orell Schmitz’s income was contemplated so there is no substantial change in circumstances. The undisputed evidence, however, does not reflect fluctuation, but steady decline. Orell Schmitz’s annual income has declined steadily from $124,000 in 1996 to $76,853 in 1998. The district court estimated Orell Schmitz’s 1999 income at approximately $86,000.1 In fact, the district court characterized this decline in income as “a downward trend in gross income.” This steady decline in in*180come is not what was contemplated. See Schmitz v. Schmitz, 1998 ND 203, ¶ 12, 586 N.W.2d 490 (a change now foreseeable “with the benefit of hindsight is not necessarily” a contemplated change).
[¶ 19] The district court considered the financial contributions of Orell Schmitz’s new wife in analyzing his current financial needs and ability to pay. In finding of fact number nine, the district court found, “At least one-half of the defendant’s living expenses are paid by his new wife in the form of payments for clothing, gifts, food and other monthly expense items.” The new wife’s financial contributions offset the effects of Orell Schmitz’s steady income decline. In its second conclusion of law, the district court concluded, “The defendant has shown a downward trend in gross income. However, he has also had a decrease in expenses and has therefore not shown a substantial change in circumstances which would justify the Court in reducing his spousal support obligation.” Arguably, there are offsetting substantial changes in circumstance.
[¶ 20] Although there are great questions as to where this analysis could lead, I would affirm the district court’s conclusion under these very limited circumstances. See Carnahan v. Carnahan, 118 Ohio App.3d 393, 692 N.E.2d 1086, 1089, 1091 (1997) (Ohio law does not allow the inclusion of “the new spouse’s income for the purpose of determining spousal support,” but the income “can be considered when there is an allegation of a change in circumstances.”); Page v. Page, 219 N.W.2d 556, 558 (Iowa 1974) (citing Holesinger v. Holesinger, 252 Iowa 374, 107 N.W.2d 247, 251 (1961) (stating all factors of remarriage “must be considered with their attending circumstances, i.e., how do they affect the needs and obligations of the parties?”)); In re Marriage of Serna, 85 Cal.App.4th 482, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 191 (2000) (“The Legislature has made it quite clear, however, that the income of a new spouse is not to be considered in any spousal support order .”) (citation omitted).
[¶ 21] Dale V. Sandstrom.

. In ¶ 10, the majority improperly attributes an $86,000 gross income to Orell Schmitz for 1999. In its findings, the district court extrapolated an estimated income for 1999 based on Orell Schmitz's income through September.