A district court divorce judgment awarding equal residential responsibility and distributing the marital estate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Jennifer A. Schultz, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Ryan L. Schultz, Defendant and Appellee
No. 20250156
Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Jay D. Knudson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Patti J. Jensen, East Grand Forks, MN, for plaintiff and appellant.
DeAnn M. Pladson, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellee.
Schultz v. Schultz
No. 20250156
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Jennifer Schultz appeals from a divorce judgment. She argues the district
court’s analysis of the best interest factors and resulting decision that the
children’s best interests were served by awarding joint and equal residential
responsibility were clearly erroneous. She contends its analysis and decision
were clearly erroneous, not because its findings are a misapplication of law or
are not supported by evidence in the record, but rather because on review of the
record, we should have a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.
She also argues that the court’s findings of fact on the valuation of certain assets,
in particular the equity in the home due to error regarding the debt owed, were
clearly erroneous; the court’s division of assets and allocation of debts were
clearly erroneous; and the court abused its discretion by allowing a witness to
testify and admitting exhibits not properly disclosed. Ryan Schultz argues the
appeal is frivolous and requests attorney’s fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38.
[¶2] After a review of the record, we conclude the district court’s findings on
the best interest factors and its award of equal residential responsibility are not
clearly erroneous, and we are not left with a definite and firm conviction a
mistake has been made. We further conclude the court’s valuation and
distribution of the marital estate are not clearly erroneous, and the court did not
abuse its discretion by allowing the witness to testify and admitting exhibits. We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). Because Jennifer
Schultz’s appeal is not frivolous, we deny Ryan Schultz’s request for attorney’s
fees. See N.D.R.App.P. 38 (“If the court determines that an appeal is frivolous . . .
it may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable
attorney’s fees.”); Ramirez v. Houge,
