## Facts

- Jill and Ronald Parisien married in 1975 and had four adult children.
- Jill filed for divorce in 2008; the district court found the marriage failed due to Ronald’s personal, marital, and financial misconduct, including a long-term affair and criminal conduct.
- At judgment, Jill was 50 and earned about $24,000 annually; the court found she had reached her maximum earning capacity and that further education was unlikely to improve her earnings.
- Jill had health problems, including diabetes, limiting her ability to work more or substantially increase income.
- Ronald was 52 and earned $63,350 in 2008, with higher earning capacity.
- Key assets included approximately 70 acres inherited by Jill, the marital home built on that land, and Ronald’s retirement account (about $47,030).
- The district court awarded Jill property valued at $110,050 less $21,990 debt (including the house and inherited land) and awarded Ronald property valued at $64,330 less $19,695 debt (including his retirement account).
- The court ordered “permanent” spousal support: $1,500 per month for two years, then $1,250 per month thereafter, subject to terminating conditions (e.g., Jill’s death or remarriage), and required Ronald to maintain Jill’s health insurance until she qualified for Medicare or remarried.
- Ronald appealed, challenging the award of permanent spousal support, particularly in combination with an unequal property division.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in awarding permanent spousal support under the Ruff–Fischer guidelines.
2. Whether the district court’s unequal property division, together with permanent spousal support, produced an impermissible overall economic result.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the divorce judgment.
- The court held the permanent spousal support award was not clearly erroneous.
- The court held the unequal property division was adequately explained and justified and did not bar an additional support award.
- The court approved considering Ronald’s misconduct because it caused economic harm to Jill and was relevant to equitable relief.

## Legal Principles

- Spousal support determinations are findings of fact and are reversed only if clearly erroneous (legal error, no evidentiary support, or a definite and firm conviction of mistake).
- Property division and spousal support must be evaluated together to assess the overall fairness of the economic outcome.
- Under the Ruff–Fischer framework, courts consider age, earning ability, duration of marriage, conduct with economic consequences, health, financial circumstances, and the origin and value of property.
- Permanent spousal support may be appropriate after a long-term marriage when one spouse has limited earning capacity and health constraints and the other spouse has substantially greater earning capacity.
- An unequal property division does not preclude permanent spousal support when both awards are supported by stated reasons and the combined result is equitable.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a stepped-down but indefinite spousal support award and an unequal property distribution, concluding that the trial court properly applied the Ruff–Fischer factors, permissibly considered misconduct with economic consequences, and did not clearly err in addressing the parties’ long-term marriage, earning disparity, and Jill’s health-limited earning capacity.


Parisien v. Parisien, 2010 ND 35, 779 N.W.2d 130 (N.D. 2010)