Court Opinion

ID: 9805308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:48:30.742452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:54.150459
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 20] I respectfully dissent. Instead of treating this case as merely an application of N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), I would affirm after concluding that the action did not abate, that the district court exercised its discretion and severed the divorce action from the property distribution proceeding and that the district court’s allocation of marital property was not clearly erroneous.
[¶ 21] The majority opinion follows our Rule 54(b) jurisprudence and overlooks the reality that a divorce action and the marital property division cannot always occur simultaneously. Legitimate delays sometimes occur in resolving property matters during the process of assembling financial information, obtaining appraisals or awaiting resolution of rights to pi'operty in other proceedings. See, e.g., Shannon v. Shannon, 2012 ND 222, ¶ 10, 822 N.W.2d 35 (resolution of husband’s claims against medical insurer prevented property distribution in divorce). The holding also exposes divorcing parties who rely on what purports to be a “judgment” of the court to the risks as highlighted in Chief Justice VandeWalle’s separate opinion.
[¶ 22] Treating the district court’s entry of a divorce judgment as a severance of the claim is consistent with our law recognizing marital dissolution proceedings have two distinct components that can be adjudicated separately. “Divorce proceedings typically contain two principal components: (1) the dissolution of the marital status, and (2) the adjudication of the incidences of the marriage. The ‘divisible divorce’ doctrine recognizes that each of these components have ‘distinct and separate jurisdictional foundations.’ ” Kelly v. Kelly, 2009 ND 20, ¶ 9, 759 N.W.2d 721 (citation omitted). As a result, a divorce and an adjudication of the incidents of divorce can occur in different courts in different jurisdictions. Id. It would be wholly inconsistent with the holding in Kelly to conclude one court cannot sever the claims and adjudicate them to judgment in separate proceedings.
[¶ 23] Here, the district court separated trial of the divorce and trial of property division. Trial on the divorce was conduct*762ed October 1, 2012. Findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for judgment on the divorce were entered October 18, 2012. The October 18, 2012 order expressly directed entry of judgment. The judgment of divorce was entered October 19, 2012. The order and judgment both acknowledged all property distribution issues including pensions and medical benefits and debt were reserved for future proceedings. On March 5, 2013, trial was conducted on the reserved property issues and a separate judgment was subsequently entered.
[¶ 24] The district court did not explain the basis for its separation of the divorce from the property distribution. I would treat the court’s October 19, 2012 judgment as a severance of claims, as permitted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 21 (“The court may also sever any claim against a party.”). Upon severance, judgment can be entered after adjudication and the adjudicated claim is subject to appeal without Rule 54(b) certification. Anderson v. Anderson, 449 N.W.2d 799, 800 n. 1 (N.D.1989) (“Under Rule 21, NDRCivP, any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately, and the trial court is not required to make a Rule 54(b) determination to make the judgment or order appealable. Federal Land Bank v. Wallace, 366 N.W.2d 444 (N.D.1985).”). It should be noted that permitting severance of the divorce from an adjudication of incidences of marriage is a narrow holding. The procedure and result in this one area of law should not be read as granting license for piecemeal adjudication of cases in other areas of civil law. Rather, outside of marital dissolution and the doctrine of divisible divorce, I expect this Court will continue to rely on our long-standing Rule 54(b) jurisprudence. See Majority opinion at ¶¶ 9-10.
[¶ 25] Even considering matters in this case as I would; the district court’s October 18, 2012 order and the October 19, 2012 judgment both stated, “Neither party shall pay to the other alimony, spousal support or maintenance. Upon entry of judgment, the Court shall be divested of jurisdiction regarding alimony, spousal support or maintenance.” We consistently have held that spousal support and property division are interrelated and intertwined and must be considered together. Kosobud v. Kosobud, 2012 ND 122, ¶ 14, 817 N.W.2d 384. Spousal support is an “incident of marriage” rather than an element of the divorce itself. Therefore, while harmless in this case because of the final property distribution (which I would affirm), the district court erred in considering “alimony, spousal support or maintenance” as part of what I consider the severed divorce claim.
[¶ 26] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, J., concurs.