North Dakota Supreme Court hears appeal over spousal support and property split in Walden divorce

BISMARCK, N.D. — The North Dakota Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument in file number 20240131, Christine Walden v. Shea (transcribed as Shay) Walden, over a district-court award that ordered monthly spousal support and split medical and other debts between the parties. Appellant counsel Erica Chisholm urged the court to vacate the support award and remand for distribution of each party’s separate assets and debts; appellee counsel Tracy Lindbergh defended the district court’s findings and the limited-duration support order.

Chisholm, representing the appellant, told the court the parties’ marriage was short — 77 months — and that they lived “very separate lives,” kept separate bank accounts and did not commingle assets. She argued the district court improperly deviated from statutory limits on spousal-support duration and that the record lacked corroborating medical evidence tying Christine Walden’s vision loss to the April 2019 incident the lower court cited. “I don’t believe that spousal support was appropriate in and under any circumstance, your honor,” Chisholm said, arguing the absence of medical records or expert testimony undermined the credibility of the claim of permanent injury and any need for long-term support.

Chisholm also disputed expense figures used to calculate need, saying Christine Walden had sold her business to her children in 2018 for $10,000 with roughly $150,000 of debt assumed by the purchasers and that, at trial, Christine lived with her children and reported far lower monthly outlays. Counsel said the district court’s order requiring roughly $1,000 a month in spousal support and assigning a portion of medical debt to Mr. Walden created an unsupportable debt load for her client.

Lindbergh, representing the appellee, countered that the action was filed in September 2022 and that the prior version of North Dakota Century Code 14‑05‑24.1 (as interpreted in Ritter) governs the dispute. She urged the justices that the district court properly applied the relevant factors and issued a limited-term award. Lindbergh said the record reflects that Christine Walden had marketplace insurance before later qualifying for medical assistance and disputed the characterization of the business as “multimillion dollar,” noting the record shows a $10,000 transfer and assumption of $150,000 in debt.

On the question whether the district court attributed Christine Walden’s left‑eye injury to Shay Walden’s act, Lindbergh cited the district-court findings and evidence including a police report, photographs and Christine Walden’s testimony. She told the court that the trial judge relied on that evidence when finding permanent injury and that the judge’s spousal-support decision was intended to help Christine live independently given her medical limitations.

The justices questioned both sides about the statutory framework and whether a change in the statute limiting support duration applied to the case. A justice asked whether the divorce was initiated before the newer statutory limit took effect; counsel disputed the timing and its effect, and the panel probed whether reversing on that point could produce different results on remand.

Lindbergh also defended the property distribution, saying record evidence supported a house valuation and that Christine contributed roughly $27,000 in improvements; she summarized that the trial court’s math resulted in Christine having a negative net position and Shay a positive net position under the distribution the court adopted.

On discovery and attorney-fee issues, Lindbergh told the court she had sought multiple discovery responses, motions to compel and sanctions during litigation and that some responses came only after coercive measures; she said her fee statements are in the record. The court cut off argument when time expired and took the case under advisement.

The North Dakota Supreme Court did not issue a decision at the hearing; the matter was submitted for consideration and will be decided by opinion. The court panel on the record included Justice Daniel Carothers, Justice Lisa Fair McEvers, Justice Douglas Barr, Justice Jared Tufty and Justice John Jensen; the district-court judge below was Bradley A. Cruff.