ND Supreme Court hears appeal over farm-crop valuation, property split, child custody and attorney fees in Van Beek divorce

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument in the appeal of Tammy Van Beek v. Daryl Van Beek, file no. 20240319, in which the primary disputes on appeal concern the district court's property division (including valuation of alleged unaccounted-for crops), the residential-responsibility award for the parties' oldest child, child-support calculations, and attorney-fee awards. Appellant's counsel Leah Warner argued that the court clearly erred in valuing and assigning to Daryl Van Beek more than $1.1 million in unaccounted-for crops and in awarding Daryl mostly depreciating, nonappreciating assets while awarding Tammy appreciating assets; appellee's counsel Elizabeth Ellsbury defended the court's factual findings and its ancillary rulings. The court took the case under advisement.

Warner told the justices that the district court's equalization was based on items that "didn't exist. They never existed," and that the court accepted demonstrative figures that assumed a 100% yield and market price to value crops without evidence the crops were planted, harvested or held on hand. Warner noted the district court found the marital estate exceeded $2,000,000 and that the distribution awarded Tammy roughly 52% of the estate and Daryl 48%, producing an approximately $70,000 disparity on paper but, she argued, a much larger practical inequality because Tammy received real estate and retirement accounts while Daryl received mostly vehicles and equipment.

Ellsbury responded that the farming operation at issue was not the viable family farm the appellant described and that the record contains sales and insurance records, Agtegra reports and testimony indicating grain was held and sold at times. She argued the lower court reasonably found the quarter section of land and crop values as it did, that operating expenses had been considered consistent with the parties' tax returns and cash accounting, and that exclusion of an insurance-agent witness was not reversible error where no offer of proof established what the witness would have said.

Key factual and numerical points discussed at argument include: district court findings that the estate exceeded $2,000,000; Tammy Van Beek awarded about 52% of the estate and Daryl about 48%; items listed in the findings as "unaccounted for" crops totalling $1,177,229 (sunflowers $513,397; corn $161,186; soybeans $502,625); a property equalization payment ordered to Tammy of $700,000 (as recited during argument); Tammy awarded approximately $743,400 in real estate in one finding and, in summary figures, $774,024 in appreciating assets (the transcript shows both figures in the district-court findings); Daryl assigned $378,605 in vehicles and household goods in one findings column and $0 in retirement accounts; an average expense rate of about 52.3% derived from tax-return figures that counsel argued should reduce any gross crop valuation and which Warner converted into an expected expense total of roughly $588,614 that she says is not reflected in the returns.

Counsel also debated whether the quarter section of land purchased in 2020 (from Daryl's father) constituted a viable, ongoing farming enterprise that should be preserved rather than sold; Ellsbury pointed to authority that a nonviable farming operation should be sold and proceeds divided, and she emphasized testimony and records showing low or negative net cash flow on the operation in several years. The parties disputed whether crops reported in insurance schedules and elevator (Agtegra) reports supported the district court's valuation or instead reflected inflated assumptions (for example, the use of a 100% yield multiplier and end-of-year prices).

Ellsbury additionally urged the court to affirm the district court's award of primary residential responsibility for Tammy as not clearly erroneous, and to affirm the lower court's award of attorney fees (both trial and appellate) under the domestic-violence provision counsel cited; she argued the lower court had evidence before it on ability to pay and on discovery noncompliance that supported a fee award. Warner argued that the record does not support the magnitude of the equalization payment or the particular mix of assets assigned to her client and that the district court relied on speculative valuations in places.

No decision was announced at argument. The court took the case under advisement.