Court Opinion

ID: 9525610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:05:31.9583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:48.023581
License: Public Domain

KAPSNER, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 42] I join in paragraphs 24 through 37 and paragraph 40 of Justice Maring’s separate opinion. I do not join in paragraphs 38 and 39 because the facts discussed there were not brought to the court’s attention during trial, and there is no indication the trial court considered those facts.
[¶ 43] Brian Overland brought post-trial motions to reconsider both property and spousal support. The trial court reiterated it had applied the Ruff-Fischer factors to decide both property division and spousal support.
The “consideration of the circumstances of the parties” called for by Section 14-05-24.1, NDCC, is a consideration by the Court of the Ruff/Fischer factors. The Court believes that it did consider these factors, and made a decision supported by the evidence in light of those factors.
[¶ 44] The trial court did not err in doing so. Sack v. Sack, 2006 ND 57, ¶ 11, 711 N.W.2d 157.
[¶ 45] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER