Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Justices question calculations of spousal and child support in Jones divorce appeal
Summary
Counsel disputed whether the district court omitted in-kind income and the awarded spousal support when calculating child support and whether that error requires remand.
At oral argument in Benjamin Jones v. Melanie Jones, attorneys argued whether the district court properly calculated spousal and child support and whether the court’s property distribution errors infected those calculations.
Attorney Erin Conroy told the Supreme Court the district court failed to include evidence that Melanie Jones lived ‘‘rent free’’ in the marital home and received in-kind benefits, such as fuel from her father, and that the court did not include the spousal-support award when calculating child support. Conroy said those omissions were in the record and required remand because North Dakota precedent and this court’s prior holdings require inclusion of spousal support in child-support computations.
Defense counsel Chris Rausch argued the administrative guidelines and case law limit what counts as imputed or in-kind income. He summarized the guidelines during argument and cited Sherman v. Sherman (2016 ND 69) for the proposition that ‘‘in-kind income’’ counts only when it derives from employment or an income-producing activity; he said the testimony showed Dennis (Melanie’s father) temporarily held payments during the COVID period but that the district court found a zero monetary value because the contract for deed was in default.
Counsel and the justices also discussed specific amounts and deadlines that appear in the record: the attorneys referenced testimony that about $19,000 remained owing on the contract for deed, a trial-era valuation date in late 2023, a reference to approximately $1,100 per month as the mortgage/occupancy figure, and a foreclosure-related notice dated Feb. 14, 2024. The court questioned whether, if child-support calculations are remanded to include spousal support, the district court could then reopen or increase the spousal-support award to maintain the obligor’s and recipient’s intended net positions; counsel acknowledged the district court may revisit equitable relief under appropriate procedures.
The court took the case under advisement at the end of argument; no ruling was issued at the hearing.
Ending: The justices asked whether remand on child support would trigger reconsideration of spousal support; counsel acknowledged possible district-court recalibration but no decision was made.
