|
|
|
Short Marriage and Career Sacrifices Substantiate Equal Division in Divorce
© 2005 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
NORTH DAKOTA: Horner v. Horner, 686 N.W.2d 131 (N.D. 2004).
The trial court did not err by making an equal division of the marital estate, even though the parties' total time together (including premarital cohabitation) was only three years. The wife left a steady job with health benefits to marry the husband and gave up her plans to purchase her own home. After marrying the husband, she was able to find only part-time work, and she did not receive any spousal support. The husband had also dissipated marital property by giving it to his father. The division made by the trial court was not in any event actually equal, as the wife received $12,000 less than the husband did when her deferred monetary award was reduced to present value.
The husband appealed a trial court order dividing the marital property equally. The parties lived together for three years, including premarital cohabitation. At the request of the husband, the wife quit her full-time job, which paid benefits, abandoned her plans to buy a home, and relocated to where the husband lived. He worked on his father's farm. The wife worked part-time at a job but lived on, and worked the rest of the time on, the farm. Later, at the further request of the husband, she quit her part-time job and worked exclusively on the farm. While working on the farm she suffered injuries in a motor accident. The parties separated after three years. At this time, the husband began making gifts to his father.
At trial, the husband argued for an unequal distribution of assets because many had been owned by him prior to the marriage. The lower court disagreed. It awarded each party certain assets and a monetary award to the wife. The North Dakota Supreme Court questioned the correctness of the determination as to prior ownership but held that reversal was not required. It noted that the courts generally start with the view that marital property should be equally divided. While a long-term marriage generally supports an equal division, and that in a short marriage there can be an unequal division, with each party taking what he or she brought to the marriage, duration is only one factor. Here, the duration of the parties' relationship was short, even considering the time that the parties spent together before they were married. But the court found that the wife was a disadvantaged spouse. Such a spouse can be awarded greater assets in lieu of spousal support, which the trial court had refused to do. While close in age to the husband, the wife had given up full-time employment with health benefits, gave up her plans to purchase her own home, moved to the husband's city, and took a part-time job that earned her substantially less income. Moreover, she quit that job at the husband's request, worked on the farm, and was injured. After the separation, she had worked only part-time, earning much less than what she had earned prior to the marriage, and could not provide for her own support. Therefore, the wife had been significantly disadvantaged by the marriage and the divorce.
The equal distribution of assets was further supported by the husband's having given assets to his father and having cashed in insurance policies at the time of separation. Dissipation of marital assets is another particularly relevant factor for courts to consider in dividing assets.
Finally, a review of the record indicates that an equal division of assets was not actually made, in that the wife's monetary award was reduced to its present value, giving her $12,000 to 13,000 less in marital assets.
Go to: Division of Assets Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!