{ "artifacts": [ { "artifact_id": "art:v1:1814087f-dfdd-7572-8b4a-a94d951face0", "byte_length": 36418, "canonical_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759407/sims-v-sims/", "final_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759407/sims-v-sims/", "mime_type": "text/plain", "privacy_class": "public_primary_law", "publisher": "Free Law Project / CourtListener", "raw_sha256": "9ac8371a34db02d6bd13d2c9003cff695fb0cd20dcdbfe70814ad41ededc0c3c", "retrieval_method": "database_export", "retrieved_at": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z", "rights_basis": "Public judicial opinion text via CourtListener; no Lexis/West editorial content.", "source_id": "src:v1:us:opinion:courtlistener" } ], "contract_version": "1.0.0-draft.1", "data_as_of": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z", "defects": [], "graph_edges": [], "kind": "proof_bundle", "reconciliations": [], "record": { "authority_type": "opinion", "body": "Judicial opinion", "canonical_key": { "content_hash": "9ac8371a34db02d6", "source": "courtlistener" }, "citation_aliases": [ { "confidence": 0.7, "display_value": "Sims v. Sims", "normalized_value": "sims-v-sims-f9cd3aef", "scheme": "case-name", "source_id": "src:v1:us:opinion:courtlistener" } ], "court": null, "created_at": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z", "heading": "Sims v. Sims", "identity_state": "complete", "jurisdiction": "us-federal", "kind": "authority_record", "record_id": "rec:v1:7390cc5b-742b-7219-870b-fedc72db9f1c", "schema_version": "1.0.0-draft.1", "slug": "sims-v-sims-f9cd3aef", "title": "Sims v. Sims" }, "schema_version": "1.0.0-draft.1", "verification": { "active_defect_ids": [], "as_of": "2026-08-05", "computed_at": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z", "currentness": "2020-06-02", "grade": "B", "input_sha256": "9ac8371a34db02d6bd13d2c9003cff695fb0cd20dcdbfe70814ad41ededc0c3c", "kind": "verification", "limitations": [ "Text was ingested from CourtListener public full text.", "Not yet matched byte-for-byte to an official court/reporter PDF or HTML edition.", "Treat as researchable public law text with an open official-verification task." ], "official_receipts": [], "policy_version": "grade-policy-v1-bulk-courtlistener", "reason": "CourtListener public full text captured with content hash; not yet matched to an official court or reporter edition.", "reason_code": "courtlistener_public_full_text_unverified_against_official_reporter", "schema_version": "1.0.0-draft.1", "source_classes": [ "independent_structured_corpus" ], "verified_at": null, "version_id": "ver:v1:51ecc008-7e6d-7cfb-8229-c27057a37a16" }, "version": { "current_through": "2020-06-02", "decision_date": "2020-06-02", "effective_date": null, "finality_status": "public_full_text_unverified", "kind": "authority_version", "normalization_warnings": [ "Bulk CourtListener import; official reporter comparison pending." ], "normalized_text_sha256": "9ac8371a34db02d6bd13d2c9003cff695fb0cd20dcdbfe70814ad41ededc0c3c", "observed_at": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z", "parser_id": "bulk-courtlistener-v1", "parser_version": "1", "primary_text": "Filed 6/2/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court\n\n IN THE SUPREME COURT\n STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA\n\n 2020 ND 110\n\nErica Lynn Sims, Plaintiff and Appellant\n v.\nLarry David Sims, Defendant and Appellee\n and\nState of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest\n\n No. 20190248\n\nAppeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central\nJudicial District, the Honorable Jay D. Knudson, Judge.\n\nAFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.\n\nOpinion of the Court by Jensen, Chief Justice, in which Justices VandeWalle,\nCrothers, and Tufte joined. Justice McEvers filed an opinion concurring and\ndissenting.\n\nKelsey L. Hankey, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.\n\nWard K. Johnson, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellee; submitted on\nbrief.\n Sims v. Sims\n No. 20190248\n\nJensen, Chief Justice.\n\n[¶1] Erica Sims appeals from a judgment granting her a divorce from Larry\nSims. She argues the district court's parenting time decision is clearly\nerroneous, the court erred in determining the value of certain marital property,\nthe court erred by failing to award her spousal support, and the court erred by\nordering her to reimburse Larry Sims for half of the airfare he incurred related\nto missed parenting time.\n\n[¶2] We conclude the district court's property valuations, parenting time, and\nspousal support decisions are not clearly erroneous. However, we also conclude\nthe court erred by failing to include all of the parties' stipulated terms related\nto the property distribution in the judgment without providing an explanation\nwhy the provisions were excluded, the court erred in determining the amounts\nLarry Sims was required to reimburse Erica Sims pursuant to the interim\norder, and the court abused its discretion by ordering a remedial contempt\nsanction without finding Erica Sims in contempt. We affirm in part, reverse\nin part, and remand.\n\n I\n\n[¶3] Erica and Larry Sims were married in 1999, and have two children\ntogether, GCS and DLS. The children were 17 and 14 years old at the time of\nthe divorce trial. Erica Sims sued for divorce in December 2017.\n\n[¶4] In January 2018, Erica Sims moved for an interim order awarding her\ntemporary primary residential responsibility for the children, ordering Larry\nSims to pay child support, awarding her temporary possession of the marital\nhome, ordering the marital expenses be divided, and requiring Larry Sims to\npay spousal support. Larry Sims responded to the motion and agreed to most\nof Erica Sims' requests, but he requested that neither party be awarded\nspousal support. He also stated that he was moving to California and asked\nfor a downward departure in his child support obligation for parenting time\ntravel expenses.\n\n 1\n [¶5] After a hearing, the district court found the parties stipulated to interim\nprimary residential responsibility for the children and joint decision making,\noccupation of the marital residence, and that each party would pay one-half of\nthe mortgage payment. The court awarded Erica Sims temporary primary\nresidential responsibility of the children and awarded Larry Sims six weeks of\nparenting time during the summer and parenting time during the school\nwinter break. The court ordered Larry Sims to pay child support and all\ntransportation costs for the children related to his parenting time. The court\ndenied Erica Sims' request for spousal support. The court ordered Erica Sims\nwould have possession of the marital home and would be responsible for all\nordinary maintenance and occupancy costs, but ordered the parties to be\nequally responsible for any extraordinary repairs and to pay half of the\nmortgage payment.\n\n[¶6] In June 2018, Larry Sims moved for an order to show cause, alleging\nErica Sims violated the interim order by interfering with his summer\nparenting time. He requested the court order Erica Sims to reimburse him for\nthe cost of the plane tickets for the children to fly to California and to pay his\nattorney's fees related to the motion. The district court entered an order to\nshow cause. After a hearing, the district court found Erica Sims willfully and\nintentionally disobeyed the order and denied Larry Sims' right to parenting\ntime. The court found Erica Sims was in contempt, ordered her to reimburse\nLarry Sims for the cost of the plane tickets, and amended the interim order to\nrequire the children to visit Larry Sims in California within a certain period of\ntime and required Erica Sims to reimburse Larry Sims for half of the cost of\nthe new plane tickets.\n\n[¶7] In August 2018, Erica Sims moved for an order to show cause, alleging\nLarry Sims violated the interim order by failing to pay one-half of the\nmortgage. Larry Sims responded to the motion and alleged he was financially\nunable to pay his half of the mortgage payment. The court denied the motion\nfor an order to show cause, but found the interim order was clear and any\nrefusal or deviation from either party's obligation would be considered and\nresolved in the court's final order.\n\n 2\n [¶8] In December 2018, Larry Sims moved for an order to show cause. He\nalleged Erica Sims did not comply with the amended interim order because she\nfailed to ensure the children were on the flight to California for his parenting\ntime during winter break. He requested the court order Erica Sims to\nreimburse him for the cost of the plane tickets and that she pay his attorney's\nfees for the motion. Erica Sims opposed the motion, arguing she did not\ndisobey the order, she took the children to the airport and through security,\nbut the children left while she was speaking to someone, and the children\nrefused to get on the flight. The district court granted Larry Sims' motion for\nan order to show cause and stated the issue would be heard during the divorce\ntrial.\n\n[¶9] The parties filed a partial marital settlement agreement and parenting\nplan. The parties agreed Erica Sims would have primary residential\nresponsibility for the children, subject to Larry Sims' parenting time, Larry\nSims would be solely responsible for all transportation costs for his parenting\ntime, and he would receive a child support deviation for the transportation\ncosts. They agreed to decision making responsibility for the children and the\namount of Larry Sims' child support obligation. They agreed on some of the\nproperty and debt distribution and agreed to the valuation date for their\nproperty and debts.\n\n[¶10] After a court trial on the remaining issues, the district court distributed\nthe martial estate. The court awarded Erica Sims a net property award of\n$73,453.82, including the marital home. The court awarded Larry Sims a net\nproperty award of $6,583.16. The court denied Erica Sims' request for spousal\nsupport. The court ordered Larry Sims to pay Erica Sims $4,015.10 for his\nshare of the mortgage and auto loan payments pursuant to the interim order.\nThe court awarded Erica Sims primary residential responsibility for the\nchildren, set a parenting time schedule, and ordered Larry Sims pay child\nsupport of $1,614 per month. The court found there was not sufficient evidence\nto find Erica Sims in contempt for violating the interim order related to\nparenting time, but ordered her to reimburse Larry Sims for half of the\nexpenses for the missed parenting time. Judgment was entered.\n\n 3\n II\n\n[¶11] Erica Sims argues the district court's parenting time decision is clearly\nerroneous. She claims the court ignored significant evidence that was\nfavorable to her and detrimental to Larry Sims, her testimony was\ncorroborated by testimony from the children and the children's therapists, and\nthe record does not support the court's findings.\n\n[¶12] A district court's parenting time decision is a finding of fact subject to\nthe clearly erroneous standard of review. Dick v. Erman, 2019 ND 54, ¶ 12,\n923 N.W.2d 137. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an\nerroneous view of the law, there is no evidence to support it, or if on the entire\nrecord we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.\nId. at ¶ 6. In awarding parenting time, the best interests of the child are\nparamount. Id. at ¶ 12. Parenting time with the non-custodial parent is\npresumed to be in the child's best interest and is a right of the child. Id.\n\n[¶13] Extended parenting time with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely\nawarded if the child is old enough, absent a reason for denying it. Dick, 2019\nND 54, ¶ 13, 923 N.W.2d 137. But a non-custodial parent's parenting time\nmay be limited or eliminated if it is likely to endanger the child's physical or\nemotional health. Rustad v. Baumgartner, 2018 ND 268, ¶ 8, 920 N.W.2d 465.\n\"[A] restriction on visitation must be based on a preponderance of the evidence\nand be accompanied by a detailed demonstration of the physical or emotional\nharm likely to result from visitation.\" Id. (quoting Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26,\n¶ 38, 778 N.W.2d 786).\n\n[¶14] Erica Sims argued the children were emotionally harmed by parenting\ntime with Larry Sims and requested parenting time be suspended until the\nchildren were ready to resume visiting their father. She claimed Larry Sims\nwas responsible for the deterioration of his relationship with the children, he\nconsistently placed the children in the middle of the divorce conflict, and both\nchildren experienced physical and mental health problems from the stress and\nanxiety triggered by their father. She alleged the children's therapists\nrecommended Larry Sims' parenting time be suspended until he could show\nprogress in understanding the children's emotional and mental well-being and\n\n 4\n the children feel comfortable seeing him, and the children were clear that they\ncannot have any parenting time with their father at this time. Larry Sims\nargued Erica Sims was alienating the children from him, and he requested\n\"standard parenting time\" including extended parenting time during the\nsummer and winter break.\n\n[¶15] The district court considered the testimony from the children's\ntherapists, the children, Erica Sims, and Larry Sims. The court found Erica\nSims' testimony about the children's relationship with Larry Sims was not\n\"fully honest,\" she had previously been found in contempt for failing to comply\nwith the interim parenting time order, and she did not take any responsibility\nfor the breakup of the marriage and the difficulty of the continuing relationship\nbetween the children and their father. The children testified they do not want\nto visit their father. DLS testified it was too hard to be away from her mother's\nhome for the summer, but DLS was told she could go to France during the\nsummer for three months, the court stated it was hard to comprehend how DLS\nhad such anxiety she could not go to California for a few weeks to see her father\nbut could travel to a foreign country without parental supervision for three\nmonths, and the court stated it indicated the testimony about the girls not\nbeing emotionally able to spend time with their father was not entirely\ntruthful. The court found the therapists did not have an opportunity to\nconsider all of the circumstances of the case, Erica Sims did not fully support\na relationship between the children and their father, the children's testimony\nappeared to be contrived, and the divorce was having a profound effect on the\nchildren. The court found law enforcement conducted a welfare check at Larry\nSims' house during his parenting time and found nothing inappropriate was\nhappening, Larry Sims took the children to do different activities and to visit\nplaces in California as the children requested, and he \"truly seems to want to\nbe able to continue, or to rebuild, . . . the relationship between him and [the\nchildren].\" The court found parenting time with Larry Sims was not likely to\nendanger the children's physical or emotional health and parenting time was\nappropriate.\n\n 5\n [¶16] The district court found the testimony from Erica Sims, the children, and\nthe children's therapists was not credible, explaining:\n\n With all due respect to the opinion of [the children's\n therapists], the Court notes that their opinions are based primarily\n on the information given to them by the children and their\n experiences with the children. Earlier in this case, the therapists\n wrote letters indicating that it would be appropriate for the girls\n to have a two week visit with Larry instead of a four week visit.\n Now they recommend no visit. They clearly want what is best for\n the children, but it is apparent to the Court that they have not\n been given the opportunity to consider all the circumstances in this\n case. It appears to the Court that Erica, despite outward\n appearances, is not fully supporting a relationship between Larry\n and the girls. The Court has previously found her in contempt in\n this case for not following through with parenting time clearly\n directed in the Interim Order. The Court does not find the\n testimony of the girls to be particularly forthcoming, and, in fact,\n it appears that much of the testimony, including the crying, was\n contrived. The Court is cognizant that the girls are going through\n a very difficult time right now, given the breakup of the family.\n There is no doubt, absolutely none, that what is happening\n between their parents is having a profound effect on the children.\n However, the Court simply does not come to the conclusion that\n parenting time with their father is likely to endanger the children's\n physical or emotional health. Parenting time between Larry and\n the children is appropriate. It is also appropriate at the same time\n to craft a parenting time plan that takes into account the\n emotional state and the emotional needs of the children.\n\n[¶17] The district court ordered Larry Sims have parenting time one weekend\neach month in North Dakota during the school year at his discretion and with\n30-days' notice. The court ordered Larry Sims have extended parenting time\nat his home during the summer starting two weeks after school is finished and\nending three weeks before the start of school. The court also set a schedule for\nholiday parenting time.\n\n[¶18] \"Findings of fact . . . whether based on oral or other evidence, must not\nbe set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due\n\n 6\n regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility.\"\nN.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6). We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the\nwitnesses' credibility. Conzemius v. Conzemius, 2014 ND 5, ¶ 6, 841 N.W.2d\n716. \"A choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is\nnot clearly erroneous, and our deferential review is especially applicable for a\ndifficult child custody decision involving two fit parents.\" Thomas v. Thomas,\n2020 ND 18, ¶ 4, 937 N.W.2d 554 (quoting Dickson v. Dickson, 2018 ND 130,\n¶ 7, 912 N.W.2d 321).\n\n[¶19] The district court found parenting time with Larry Sims is not likely to\nendanger the children's physical or emotional health. Evidence exists in the\nrecord to support the court's findings. Our case law is clear, we will not retry\nthe case or substitute our judgment for the district court's decision merely\nbecause we might have reached a different result. Carlson v. Carlson, 2020\nND 36, ¶ 6, 938 N.W.2d 413. We conclude the court's parenting time decision\nis not clearly erroneous.\n\n III\n\n[¶20] Erica Sims raises several issues with the district court's property\ndistribution, including that the court's valuation of the marital property is\nclearly erroneous and that the court failed to include some of the terms of the\nparties' partial settlement agreement.\n\n[¶21] The district court must include all marital assets and debts in the\nmarital estate and then equitably divide the property after applying the Ruff-\nFischer guidelines. Lizakowski v. Lizakowski, 2019 ND 177, ¶ 7, 930 N.W.2d\n609. A court's property valuation and distribution are findings of fact, which\nwill not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. at ¶ 6; Lee v. Lee,\n2019 ND 142, ¶ 6, 927 N.W.2d 104. \"A choice between two permissible views\nof the evidence is not clearly erroneous if the district court's findings are based\neither on physical or documentary evidence, or inferences from other facts, or\non credibility determinations.\" Lee, at ¶ 6 (quoting Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2001\nND 124, ¶ 13, 629 N.W.2d 573). The court's valuation depends on the evidence\nthe parties present, and this Court presumes the court's valuations are correct.\n\n 7\n Lee, at ¶ 6. A property valuation within the range of evidence is not clearly\nerroneous. Id. at ¶ 9.\n\n A\n\n[¶22] Erica Sims argues the district court erred in determining the household\ngoods had a value of $2,000. She contends that property was already divided\nin the parties' stipulation and she testified the property was worn down and in\ndisrepair.\n\n[¶23] The parties' testimony about the value of the household goods was\nconflicting. Erica Sims testified all of the furniture was falling apart or torn\nand that she did not think it was in good enough condition that it could be sold\nat a garage sale. Larry Sims testified the household goods were worth $15,000.\n\n[¶24] The parties stipulated to the division of the household goods, but district\ncourt's valuation was necessary to decide an equitable distribution. The court\nexplained there was limited evidence about the value of the property and\n$2,000 was the most reasonable value. We conclude the court's valuation is\nwithin the range of evidence and is not clearly erroneous.\n\n B\n\n[¶25] Erica Sims argues the court's valuations of Larry Sims' tools, guns, and\nhunting and fishing gear; her horse tack; and her tools, guns, and bow are\nclearly erroneous. She claims the evidence supported the valuations she\nproposed for these assets.\n\n[¶26] The parties presented conflicting testimony on the valuation of the\nassets. The district court's choice between two permissible views of the\nevidence is not clearly erroneous. Lee, 2019 ND 142, ¶ 6, 927 N.W.2d 104. The\ncourt's valuations were within the range of evidence presented at trial.\n\n[¶27] This Court is not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has\nbeen made. We conclude the district court's valuations of these assets were\nnot clearly erroneous.\n\n 8\n C\n\n[¶28] Erica Sims argues the district court erred when it did not consider or\ninclude various terms from the parties' partial marital settlement agreement\nin the judgment. She contends the parties stipulated to include an\nindemnification clause necessary to protect her interest in Larry Sims' military\nretirement and that Larry Sims would continue coverage for her as a former\nspouse under his Survivor Benefit Plan.\n\n[¶29] The relevant portion of the stipulation states:\n\n Erica shall be awarded a percentage of Larry's disposable\n military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying fifty (50)\n percent times a fraction, the numerator of which is nineteen (19)\n years of marriage during Larry's creditable military service,\n divided by Larry's total number of years of creditable military\n service. Larry served for a total of twenty-[one] (21) years,\n therefore, Erica shall receive 1/2 x (19/21) = 45% of Larry's\n disposable retired pay. Larry will take no action that would reduce\n Erica's share of his military retired pay and indemnifying Erica of\n any reduction. Larry will elect to continue coverage for Erica as a\n former spouse under his Survivor Benefit Plan and she will be\n named as the beneficiary of the Survivor Benefit Plan. Any cost of\n the Survivor Benefit Plan will be deducted from Erica's monthly\n payment. This paragraph may be changed by the decision of the\n Court regarding Erica's federal retirement earned during the\n marriage. (The language lined out above was lined out prior to\n submission to the district court.)\n\n[¶30] The district court included the first two sentences of this paragraph from\nthe settlement agreement in the judgment, but it did not include any of the\nremaining terms. The court did not provide any explanation for not including\nthe rest of the parties' stipulation.\n\n[¶31] This Court has \"encouraged parties to reach peaceful settlements of\ndisputes in divorce matters because there is ‘strong public policy favoring\nprompt and peaceful resolution of divorce disputes.'\" Vann v. Vann, 2009 ND\n118, ¶ 12, 767 N.W.2d 855 (quoting Knutson v. Knutson, 2002 ND 29, ¶ 8, 639\nN.W.2d 495). We have said \"To the extent that competent parties have\n\n 9\n voluntarily stipulated to a particular disposition of their marital property, a\ncourt ordinarily should not decree a distribution of property that is inconsistent\nwith the parties' contract.\" Eberle v. Eberle, 2009 ND 107, ¶ 15, 766 N.W.2d\n477 (quoting Kramer v. Kramer, 2006 ND 64, ¶ 6, 711 N.W.2d 164).\n\n[¶32] The district court excluded some of the terms of the parties' settlement\nagreement without explanation. We reverse the court's property distribution\nand remand for the court to include the stipulated provisions in the judgment\nor to provide an explanation why these terms were not included.\n\n IV\n\n[¶33] Erica Sims argues the district court erred in the amounts it ordered\nLarry Sims to pay for the mortgage payment and household repairs pursuant\nto the interim order.\n\n[¶34] In the March 8, 2018 interim order, the district court ordered Erica Sims\nwould be responsible for all ordinary maintenance and occupancy costs of the\nmarital home, and \"[t]he parties shall be equally responsible for any\nextraordinary repairs, and any disputes as to this characterization can be\naddressed at the trial and considered in asset or equity allocation.\" The court\nalso ordered, \"Each party shall pay one-half of the mortgage payment on or\nbefore the due date, beginning with the next payment following entry of this\nInterim Order.\" The court ordered Larry Sims to pay an F-250 truck loan.\n\n[¶35] At the time of the trial, the parties agreed they were equally responsible\nfor $6,246.13 in home maintenance and repairs pursuant to the interim order.\nHowever, the parties did not agree on the amounts Larry Sims was required\nto pay for his share of the mortgage under the interim order. Erica Sims\nclaimed Larry Sims owed $5,429.70, and Larry Sims claimed he owed $3,600.\nErica Sims testified Larry Sims was supposed to be paying half of the monthly\nmortgage payment, but he did not make any payments after May 2018. Larry\nSims testified he initially paid half of the mortgage but he stopped paying his\nhalf after May 2018 because he could not afford to pay both the mortgage\npayment and tax debt. He testified it was necessary for him to pay off the tax\n\n 10\n debt to maintain his security clearance and keep his job. He testified he paid\nall but $3,600 for his half of the mortgage.\n\n[¶36] The district court found each party was responsible for paying half of the\nmortgage for nine months under the terms of the interim order, the mortgage\npayment was $1,206.60 per month, Larry Sims did not make any mortgage\npayments after May 2018, and Larry Sims is responsible for reimbursing Erica\nSims $3,600 for his half of the missed mortgage payments. The court said it\nwould not include the $3,600 for the missed payments in the property\ndistribution because Larry Sims was responsible to pay that amount while the\nlitigation was pending. The court ordered Larry Sims to reimburse Erica Sims\n$3,600 for the missed mortgage payments within one hundred eighty days of\nthe notice of entry of judgment. The court also found Larry Sims was\nresponsible for paying a F-250 truck loan pursuant to the interim order, he did\nnot make all of the required payments on the loan, and Erica Sims incurred\n$415.10 in costs for payments on the loan. The court ordered Larry Sims to\nreimburse Erica Sims for the auto loan payments. The court did not separately\naddress the home repairs, but ordered:\n\n Larry shall pay to Erica the amount to reimburse her for costs due\n to her under the Interim Order. The amount due is $4,015.10.\n This payment will relieve him of his obligations pursuant to the\n Interim Order in this action, to include, his share of the mortgage\n payment and the household repairs, and his obligation to pay for\n the F-250 truck payment.\n\n[¶37] Erica Sims argues the district court erred in determining the amount\nLarry Sims was required to pay to reimburse her for his half of the mortgage.\nShe contends Larry Sims is responsible for half of the mortgage payment for\nthe months of June through December, for a total of $4,223.10. The district\ncourt found Larry Sims was responsible for half of the $1,206.60 mortgage\npayment pursuant to the interim order and he did not make any payments\nafter May 2018. The evidence supports the court's finding. However, half of\nthe mortgage is $603.30, the trial was held in December 2018, and the court\nfound Larry Sims did not make any mortgage payments after May 2018.\nUnder the terms of the interim order, Larry Sims was required to pay\n\n 11\n $4,223.10 for his half of the mortgage for the months of June through December\n2018.\n\n[¶38] Erica Sims also argues the district court erred by failing to order Larry\nSims to pay half of the household repairs pursuant to the interim order. Both\nparties agreed in their joint property and debt listing that they were equally\nresponsible for $6,246.13 in home maintenance and repairs pursuant to the\ninterim order. The court ordered Larry Sims to pay Erica Sims $4,015.10 to\nreimburse her for the costs due under the interim order, including his share of\nthe mortgage payment and household repairs and his obligation to pay for the\nF-250 truck payment. The total amount the court determined Larry Sims was\nrequired to pay under the interim order did not include any amount for the\nhousehold repairs. The court did not provide an explanation for not ordering\nLarry Sims to pay any portion of the household repairs.\n\n[¶39] We conclude the district court erred in calculating the amount Larry\nSims was required to reimburse Erica Sims for the mortgage payments and by\nfailing to require any reimbursement of the costs of the household repairs,\nabsent an explanation of why the court ordered a lesser amount. We reverse\nand remand for the court to order Larry Sims to pay half of the household\nrepairs as required under the terms of the interim order and to include the full\namount Larry Sims was required to pay for half of the mortgage payment, or\nto provide an explanation of why it ordered a lesser amount.\n\n V\n\n[¶40] Erica Sims argues the district court erred by failing to award her spousal\nsupport. She claims the court did not consider the standard of living\nestablished during the marriage, the disparity in earning capacity, her\nforegone opportunities and contributions to Larry Sims' earning ability, and\nthe unequal burdens the divorce created upon the parties.\n\n[¶41] The district court's decision about spousal support is a finding of fact,\nsubject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Tarver v. Tarver, 2019 ND\n189, ¶ 15, 931 N.W.2d 187. The court may award spousal support under\nN.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1 after taking the parties' circumstances into\n\n 12\n consideration. \"The court must consider the needs of the spouse seeking\nsupport and the ability of the other spouse to pay.\" Tarver, at ¶ 15. The court\nmust also consider the Ruff-Fischer factors, which include:\n\n [T]he respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the\n duration of the marriage and conduct of the parties during the\n marriage, their station in life, the circumstances and necessities of\n each, their health and physical condition, their financial\n circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time, its\n value at the time, its income-producing capacity, if any, whether\n accumulated before or after the marriage, and such other matters\n as may be material.\n\nId.\n\n[¶42] The district court made findings about the Ruff-Fischer factors, Erica\nSims' need for spousal support, and Larry Sims' ability to pay. The court found\nErica Sims is currently employed close to full-time, her annual pay from\nemployment is at least $37,123.94, she receives $1,278 per month in military\ndisability, she has four college degrees including a master's degree, she will\nreceive $1,614 per month in child support, and $1,013 per month of Larry Sims'\nmilitary retirement. The court found Erica Sims has the ability to work full\ntime and increase her monthly income, she will immediately receive a portion\nof Larry Sims' retirement, she will have the retirement accounts in her name,\nand she is receiving the majority of the value of the marital estate. The court\nfound Erica Sims sacrificed her military career and some of her earning ability,\nbut her sacrifice was mitigated by the fact that she earned multiple educational\ndegrees during the marriage. The court found Erica Sims alleged $6,100 in\nmonthly living expenses, she has a monthly income of $5,487.82 but it would\nbe higher if she worked full time, and that she would be able to fully cover her\nmonthly expenses if she worked full time. The court found Larry Sims'\nmonthly income after the divorce will be $7,618.46 and his expenses will be\napproximately $4,775. The court concluded, \"Based on the financial needs of\nthe parties and their ability to pay, and also based on the distribution of the\nvalue of marital estate, the Court finds neither party needs spousal support\nand no spousal support will be awarded.\"\n\n 13\n [¶43] Evidence in the record supports the district court's findings.\nWe conclude the court's spousal support decision is not clearly erroneous.\n\n VI\n\n[¶44] Erica Sims argues the district court erred by ordering her to reimburse\nLarry Sims for the transportation costs associated with his missed parenting\ntime.\n\n[¶45] Larry Sims requested that the court hold Erica Sims in contempt for\nfailing to ensure the children were on a flight so he could exercise his parenting\ntime in California and that she reimburse him for the cost of the plane tickets.\nThe district court found there was not sufficient evidence to find Erica Sims in\ncontempt and the testimony indicated Erica Sims put the children on the plane\nto travel to California and the children snuck off on their own accord. The\ncourt further found, \"However, as a result, it is also not appropriate for Larry\nto bear the full cost of the visitation expenses for visits with the children that\nnever happened, regardless of whether or not the children were behind the\ndenial of parenting time.\" The court ordered Erica Sims to reimburse Larry\nSims for half of the expense of the missed parenting time.\n\n[¶46] \"Contempt of court\" includes the \"[i]ntentional disobedience, resistance,\nor obstruction of the authority, process, or order of a court[.]\" N.D.C.C. § 27-\n10-01.1(1)(c). Under N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1), a court may impose a remedial\nsanction for contempt, including the payment of an amount sufficient to\ncompensate a party for a loss or injury suffered as a result of the contempt,\nincluding an amount to reimburse the party for costs or expenses incurred as\na result of the contempt. \"The determination whether a contempt has been\ncommitted and remedial sanctions are warranted lies within the sound\ndiscretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal\nunless there is a clear abuse of discretion.\" Kautzman v. Kautzman, 2002 ND\n118, ¶ 8, 647 N.W.2d 684 (quoting Harger v. Harger, 2002 ND 76, ¶ 14, 644\nN.W.2d 182). The court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary,\nunreasonable, or unconscionable manner, or it misinterprets or misapplies the\nlaw. Cook v. Cook, 2020 ND 11, ¶ 5, 937 N.W.2d 286.\n\n 14\n [¶47] The district court found there was not sufficient evidence to find Erica\nSims in contempt. The interim order states Larry Sims \"is responsible for all\ntransportation costs for the children related to his parenting time.\" The court\nimposed a remedial sanction by ordering Erica Sims to pay half of the costs of\nthe plane tickets for the missed parenting time.\n\n[¶48] We conclude the district court abused its discretion by imposing a\nremedial contempt sanction after finding Larry Sims failed to prove Erica Sims\nwas in contempt. We reverse the district court's order.\n\n VII\n\n[¶49] Erica Sims argues the district court abused its discretion by ordering her\nto reimburse Larry Sims for transportation costs if the children do not comply\nwith the ordered parenting time in the future.\n\n[¶50] The district court allocated parenting time costs, ordering:\n\n Larry shall be solely responsible for all costs and providing\n transportation for his parenting time. Larry is receiving a child\n support deviation based upon him being solely responsible for\n transportation costs. Should Erica or the children not comply with\n the parenting time as ordered, Erica shall reimburse Larry for the\n full cost any transportation related expenses associated with the\n parenting time within seven (7) days. This section does not\n preclude Larry from seeking an order to show cause with the Court\n for violations of the Judgment.\n\n[¶51] Erica Sims argues the district court's order imposes a remedial contempt\nsanction for future acts without notice and a hearing. However, the court did\nnot order a remedial sanction for future contempt. The court allocated future\ntransportation costs for parenting time dependent upon whether the ordered\nparenting time occurs. It is not an abuse of discretion for a court to allocate\nparenting time expenses dependent upon whether the children actually visit.\nWe conclude the court did not abuse its discretion.\n\n 15\n VIII\n\n[¶52] We have considered the remaining issues and arguments and conclude\nthey are either unnecessary to our decision or are without merit. We affirm\nthe judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand.\n\n[¶53] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.\n Jerod E. Tufte\n Gerald W. VandeWalle\n Daniel J. Crothers\n\nMcEvers, Justice, concurring and dissenting.\n\n[¶54] I agree with the majority in sections I through VI. For the reasons set\nforth below, I respectfully dissent in regard to section VII.\n\n[¶55] As noted by the majority in section III(C), the parties stipulated to\nvarious terms in a marital settlement agreement. Majority, at ¶ 28. One of\nthe terms stipulated to was child support, which included \"a deviation for\ntransportation costs to exercise [Larry Sims'] parenting time.\" The stipulation\nfurther provided under a transportation provision that \"Larry shall be solely\nresponsible for all costs and providing transportation for his parenting time.\nLarry is receiving a child support deviation based upon him being solely\nresponsible for transportation costs.\" The district court incorporated the terms\nof the stipulation into the judgment under its \"child support\" provision, but\neffectively changed the terms of the stipulation by adding the following\ntransportation provision:\n\n Should Erica or the children not comply with the parenting time\n as ordered, Erica shall reimburse Larry for the full cost [of] any\n transportation related expenses associated with the parenting\n time within seven (7) days. This section does not preclude Larry\n from seeking an order to show cause with the Court for violations\n of the Judgment.\n\n[¶56] Similar to the majority's discussion in section III(C), the district court\nincluded portions of the stipulation and then modified the transportation\nprovision without an explanation. Majority, at ¶ 30. Here, it appears the court\n\n 16\n is attempting to provide a sanction for a prospective contempt, based on the\nprevious experience where the children deliberately \"snuck off\" at the airport\nto avoid visiting their father. As noted in section VI of the majority opinion,\nErica Sims was not found in contempt for this action. Majority, at ¶ 45.\nSimilar to the conclusion on the contempt issue, the court abused its discretion\nin modifying the terms of the stipulation without an explanation, and\neffectively imposed a prospective sanction without a finding of contempt.\nShould the children decide to \"sneak off\" again, Erica Sims will be paying for\nthat indiscretion twice, first by having the agreed upon deviation reduce the\nchild support she receives and then by having to reimburse Larry Sims for\ntravel expenses he stipulated to pay.\n\n[¶57] I would reverse and remand the district court's allocation of\ntransportation for parenting time expenses.\n\n[¶58] Lisa Fair McEvers\n\n 17", "publication_date": "2020-06-02", "publication_status": "public", "record_id": "rec:v1:7390cc5b-742b-7219-870b-fedc72db9f1c", "schema_version": "1.0.0-draft.1", "source_locators": [ { "artifact_id": "art:v1:1814087f-dfdd-7572-8b4a-a94d951face0", "locator": "full-text", "quote_sha256": "9ac8371a34db02d6bd13d2c9003cff695fb0cd20dcdbfe70814ad41ededc0c3c" } ], "status": "current", "structure_sha256": "9ac8371a34db02d6bd13d2c9003cff695fb0cd20dcdbfe70814ad41ededc0c3c", "text_scope": { "excludes": [ "footer", "navigation", "annotations", "headnotes", "summaries", "editorial_content" ], "includes": [ "opinion_body" ] }, "version_id": "ver:v1:51ecc008-7e6d-7cfb-8229-c27057a37a16" } }