## Facts

- After 32 years of marriage, David Snyder filed for divorce from Anne Snyder in North Dakota district court.
- David was 56 years old and worked for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. He earned about $110,000 per year, but a significant portion came from overtime that he argued he could not continue as he aged and as the job’s physical demands increased.
- David’s employment included retirement benefits. He would become eligible to receive railroad retirement benefits at age 60.
- Anne was 51 years old. She had not worked outside the home for most of the marriage and had limited education and work history. In recent years, she earned only modest income from a home-based daycare.
- The district court found Anne needed spousal support and found David had the ability to pay, relying in part on David’s income and on findings that his living expenses were low when compared to Anne’s needs.
- The district court considered marital conduct and found David’s drinking and verbal abuse harmed the marriage.
- The district court ordered David to pay Anne spousal support of $2,500 per month for 15 years, then $1,000 per month thereafter (indefinitely).
- After trial, Anne made a posttrial request for security for the support obligation. The district court ordered David to maintain a $250,000 life-insurance policy as security.
- David appealed, challenging (1) the amount and duration of spousal support in light of his anticipated retirement and reduced overtime and (2) the life-insurance requirement imposed after trial without evidence of cost/availability and without a fair opportunity to respond.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in awarding permanent spousal support (including its amount and stepped structure) given David’s claim that his overtime income would not continue and that retirement was approaching.
2. Whether the district court erred by ordering David to maintain a $250,000 life-insurance policy to secure spousal support when the issue was raised posttrial and the record lacked evidence and findings on cost and availability, and David lacked a meaningful chance to contest it.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the spousal support award, holding the district court did not clearly err under the Ruff–Fischer analysis in ordering $2,500 per month for 15 years and $1,000 per month thereafter.
- The Court rejected David’s argument that the award was improper because of anticipated retirement or reduced overtime, noting the district court had a reasonable basis on the record and that later, material changes in circumstances can be addressed through modification proceedings.
- The Court reversed the life-insurance security requirement and remanded for further proceedings, because the district court imposed the requirement after trial without adequate evidentiary support regarding cost and availability and without giving David an adequate opportunity to respond.

## Legal Principles

- Spousal support determinations are findings of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; trial courts have broad discretion in deciding amount and duration.
- North Dakota courts evaluate spousal support under the Ruff–Fischer factors, including the parties’ ages, earning abilities, duration of the marriage, conduct, health, station in life, and financial circumstances.
- Permanent or long-term spousal support may be appropriate after a lengthy marriage when one spouse has limited earning capacity and is unlikely to become self-supporting at a comparable standard of living.
- A payor’s future retirement or possible reduction in income does not automatically make a present support award erroneous when the award is supported by current evidence; later, substantial changes may be addressed by a motion to modify.
- A court may require life insurance as security for a support obligation, but the requirement must be based on a developed record and supported by findings, including feasibility and cost, and the affected party must have a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.

## Conclusion

In Snyder v. Snyder, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a permanent, stepped spousal support award following a 32-year marriage because the district court’s Ruff–Fischer findings supported Anne’s need and David’s ability to pay despite claims of future retirement and reduced overtime; however, the Court reversed and remanded the posttrial order requiring David to maintain $250,000 in life insurance because it lacked record support on cost and availability and was entered without a meaningful chance for David to respond.


Snyder v. Snyder, 787 N.W.2d 727 (2010)