## Facts

- Carl Michael Hoverson and Sandra Morten Hoverson married in 2004 and had one child in 2005.
- Carl owned and operated a substantial farming enterprise, including a significant partnership interest in Hoverson Farms LLP; the business and related structures largely predated the marriage.
- Sandra had a high-school education with radiologic-technician training and a work history in imaging; she earned approximately $57,000 in 2003 and stopped working after the marriage, though she maintained her professional license.
- The parties maintained residences in different states during the marriage, with Sandra in Florida and Carl in North Dakota.
- Carl filed for divorce in 2010; after trial, the district court entered judgment in 2011 valuing the marital estate at about $14.5 million.
- The district court awarded Carl 80% and Sandra 20% of the marital estate, ordered rehabilitative spousal support of $3,000 per month for two years, set child support at $3,002 per month as an upward deviation from the guideline amount, and awarded Sandra attorney’s fees.
- Both parties appealed various aspects of the property distribution, support awards, and attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s 80/20 division of the marital estate was equitable under North Dakota law.
2. Whether the rehabilitative spousal support award of $3,000 per month for two years was clearly erroneous.
3. Whether the upward deviation in child support to $3,002 per month was permissible and supported by findings on the child’s needs and Carl’s ability to pay.
4. Whether the attorney’s fees award to Sandra was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the divorce judgment in all respects.
- The court held the unequal property distribution was not clearly erroneous because the district court valued the marital estate, applied the Ruff–Fischer factors, and explained the disparity, including the short duration of the marriage and Carl’s premarital creation of the core business assets.
- The court held rehabilitative spousal support for two years was not clearly erroneous given Sandra’s prior earnings, continuing licensure, and potential to become self-supporting.
- The court upheld the upward deviation in child support as permitted in high-income circumstances when supported by findings regarding the child’s needs and the obligor’s ability to pay.
- The court held the award of attorney’s fees to Sandra was within the district court’s discretion based on the parties’ relative financial circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- In divorce, all property held by either party, jointly or individually, is included in the marital estate; the court must value the total estate before distributing it.
- Marital property must be divided equitably under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1) using the Ruff–Fischer factors; an equitable distribution need not be equal, but a substantial disparity must be explained.
- Property distribution and spousal support determinations are findings of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
- Spousal support under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1 is based on the parties’ circumstances, focusing on the requesting spouse’s needs and the other spouse’s ability to pay, considered with the Ruff–Fischer factors; rehabilitative support may be used to assist a spouse toward self-support.
- Child support guideline calculations involve factual findings reviewed for clear error, while interpretation of the guidelines is reviewed de novo; an upward deviation may be ordered when supported by findings on the child’s needs and the obligor’s ability to pay.
- Attorney’s fees in divorce are discretionary, commonly based on relative ability to pay, property owned, and litigation conduct, and are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an unequal distribution of a large marital estate, limited rehabilitative spousal support, an upward child-support deviation in a high-income case, and an attorney’s fees award, emphasizing deference to well-explained district court findings under the applicable standards of review.


Hoverson v. Hoverson, 828 N.W.2d 510 (N.D. 2013)