Martiré v. Martiré

10 Citing cases

  1. Niffenegger v. LaFromboise (In re S.R.L.)

    827 N.W.2d 324 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    [¶ 3] “This Court reviews an award of primary residential responsibility under the clearly erroneous standard of review, which does not allow us to reweigh the evidence, reassess the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial decision.” Martire v. Martire, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6, 822 N.W.2d 450. “A district court's decision awarding primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if on the entire record we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” Id.

  2. Dieterle v. Dieterle

    2013 N.D. 71 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding a court need not make separate findings of fact for each factor and a court’s findings regarding one factor may be applicable to another factor

    We review an award of primary residential responsibility under the clearly erroneous standard of review, which does not allow us to reweigh the evidence, reassess the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial decision. Martiré v. Martiré, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6, 822 N.W.2d 450. A court's decision awarding primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or, although there is some evidence to support it, on the entire record we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228, ¶ 16, 823 N.W.2d 504. [¶ 7] Angela Dieterle first contends the district court, in its ruling on primary residential responsibility, failed to apply the best-interest factors and made no findings of fact regarding those factors.

  3. Martir v. Martir

    876 N.W.2d 727 (N.D. 2016)

    [¶ 2] This is a continuation of “contentious” divorce proceedings between parties who “accumulated significant assets during their marriage.” Martiré v. Martiré, 2012 ND 197, ¶¶ 2, 3, 822 N.W.2d 450. The parties were divorced in 2010 after a nearly 20–year marriage and they were awarded joint primary residential responsibility for their two sons. Id. Hendricksen Martiré was awarded primary residential responsibility for their daughter.

  4. Shae v. Shae

    2014 N.D. 149 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 6 times
    In Shae, 2014 ND 149, ¶¶ 6–12, 849 N.W.2d 173, we discouraged the mechanical use of multipliers in determining an upward deviation from the guidelines, and held there must be a balancing of the appropriate needs of the child against an amount of child support that would maintain the heightened level of support due to a child given the high income of the obligor parent.

    ” 2012 ND 197, ¶ 22, 822 N.W.2d 450 (internal citation omitted). The district court in Martiré used the rebuttal criteria in N.D. Admin. Code § 75–02–04.

  5. Vandal v. Leno

    2014 N.D. 45 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 10 times
    In Vandal, this Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen the record after the mother attempted to introduce evidence of a favorable chemical dependency evaluation after the trial had concluded.

    [¶ 6] This Court reviews an award of primary residential responsibility under the clearly erroneous standard of review, which does not allow us to reweigh the evidence, reassess the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our own judgment for a district court's initial decision. Martiré v. Martiré, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6, 822 N.W.2d 450. A district court's decision awarding primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact which will not be set aside on appeal unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, no evidence exists to support it, or, on the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. Smith v. Martinez, 2011 ND 132, ¶ 3, 800 N.W.2d 304. A choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous. Id.

  6. Hoverson v. Hoverson

    828 N.W.2d 510 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    Using term "temporary" to describe the spousal support awarded for two years

    Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58, ¶ 10, 746 N.W.2d 732. Our review under the clearly erroneous standard “does not allow us to reweigh the evidence, reassess the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial decision.” Martire v. Martire, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6, 822 N.W.2d 450. [¶ 9] A district court is required to make an equitable distribution of divorcing parties' marital property and debts.

  7. Nuveen v. Nuveen

    825 N.W.2d 863 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    Review under the clearly erroneous standard “does not allow us to reweigh the evidence, reassess the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial decision.” Martire v. Martire, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6, 822 N.W.2d 450. There is sufficient evidence in the record to uphold the district court's finding that an upward deviation would be in the best interests of the children. The district court's finding that an upward deviation was appropriate is not clearly erroneous.

  8. Saastad v. Saastad

    2019 N.D. 279 (N.D. 2019)

    [¶8] Paul Saastad argues the district court erred in granting Raina Saastad primary residential responsibility of their shared children. In support, he cites Martire v. Martire , 2012 ND 197, 822 N.W.2d 450, in which this Court affirmed a district court’s grant of joint residential responsibility despite findings that the parties agreed "on virtually nothing." However, in Martire , we emphasized the deference we pay to the trial court’s determination.

  9. Schiff v. Schiff

    2013 N.D. 142 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing a trial court may properly order divorcing party to assume separate indebtedness incurred after parties' separation

    “Relevant to a spousal support determination is the distribution of marital property, the liquid nature of the property, and the income-producing nature of property.” Marschner v. Marschner, 2001 ND 4, ¶ 13, 621 N.W.2d 339. “Property distribution and spousal support are interrelated and must be considered together.” Martiré v. Martiré, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 30, 822 N.W.2d 450. “A district court's distribution of marital property is treated as a finding of fact, which we review under the clearly erroneous standard of review.” Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2013 ND 48, ¶ 8, 828 N.W.2d 510. The district court must “equitably divide the entire marital estate under the Ruff–Fischer guidelines.

  10. Jensen v. Deaver

    828 N.W.2d 533 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    [¶ 16] Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, we do not reweigh the evidence, reassess the credibility of the witnesses, or substitute our judgment for the district court's decision. Martire v. Martire, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6, 822 N.W.2d 450. Moreover, a choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous. Id. There is evidence to support the district court's findings, and we conclude the court's findings are sufficiently specific to understand the basis for the court's decision to order supervised visitation outside the presence of Deaver's fiancee and her daughter.