concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part">SANDSTROM, Justice,

concurring and dissenting.

[¶ 54] I agree with the opinion except that, unlike the majority, I am not “left with a definite and firm conviction the [district] court made a mistake” relative to spousal support.

[¶ 55] Jon and Alonna Norberg both have medical degrees and have been employed as physicians in the past. Neither is currently licensed to practice medicine. The district court found that both hope to get their medical licenses reinstated, but because the parties’ current situation is caused by Alonna Norberg’s falsehoods, the court determined she is not in need of any additional monies under the Rujf-Fischer guidelines. The court then determined it would be divested of any jurisdic*363tion to award future spousal support to either of the parties.

[¶ 56] The majority concluded the district court properly applied the law in considering the Ruff-Fischer factors, but decided the court made a mistake in not retaining jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future. See Majority, at ¶¶ 33, 37. The majority reasoned that where there is a limitation, such as disability, on the ability to be self-supporting, a district court should retain jurisdiction because of the uncertainty about the parties’ future incomes. Id. at ¶ 35. Because Al-onna Norberg had a potential need for support in the future because of her disability, the majority concluded the court made a mistake in not retaining jurisdiction to award future spousal support. Id. at ¶ 36.

[¶57] In van Oosting v. van Oosting, this Court reversed a district court’s award of temporary spousal support, directing the trial court to award permanent support, subject to future modification. 521 N.W.2d 93, 100 (N.D.1994). In van Oosting, the parties had been married for 24 years prior to divorce. Id. at 95. The wife primarily took care of the household and the parties’ children. Id.Her total outside employment was approximately three months of part-time employment as a sales clerk, and approximately three months of employment as an assistant activities director in a nursing home. Id.During the marriage, the wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and although the disease was in remission at the time of divorce, it was likely to cause more severe physical problems in the future. Id.The marriage eventually deteriorated because the husband admitted he had been having an affair. Id.Though the parties spoke of reconciliation, the marriage broke down when the husband left the home without telling his wife where he was going or when he would return. Id.The district court found that her ability to earn would be at a low income and would be affected by her disease and that “[a]t the present time she walks with a limp and has poor memory.” Id. at 100. This Court concluded:

If trial courts find no immediate need for awarding permanent spousal support, they should retain jurisdiction to do so beyond a temporary award, when facing uncertainty about the need for permanent support.

Id. at 101.

[¶ 58] Similar to van Oosting, Reineke v. Reineke, 2003 ND 167, ¶¶ 4-10, 670 N.W.2d 841, was another ease involving the wife’s multiple sclerosis, and the Ruff-Fischer guidelines supported the district court’s award of rehabilitative spousal support. In Branson v. Branson, 411 N.W.2d 395, 398-99 (N.D.1987), also cited by the majority, the Ruff-Fischer guidelines supported the award of spousal support to the wife disadvantaged by the marriage, but at the time the husband had no ability to pay.

[¶ 59] The facts of this case are very different from those in van Oosting, Rei-neke, and Branson. Here the district court found the Ruff-Fischer guidelines were heavily against the award of spousal support. Alonna Norberg has a medical degree and was previously employed as a physician. The district court found she hopes to get her license reinstated in the future. Nevertheless, at the hearing in this matter, one of Alonna Norberg’s treating doctors testified she has a problem with overdosing on drugs and had received treatment at a detoxification center for pain medications. Concluding the parties’ situation was caused by Alonna Norberg’s falsehoods, the district court determined she is not in need of additional monies under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.

*364[¶ 60] When the totality of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines reflect that spousal support is not going to be appropriate in the future, a district court does not err when it does not reserve the issue of future support.

[¶ 61] Under the circumstances of this case and the deferential review this Court gives to spousal support determinations, I would affirm the district court’s decision relative to spousal support.

[¶ 62] DALE V. SANDSTROM

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress