Williams v. Williams , 2023 ND 240 ( 2023 )

FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
DECEMBER 15, 2023
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2023 ND 240Jennifer Michelle Williams, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Aron Lyle Williams, Defendant and Appellant
and
State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest
No. 20230201
Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Reid A. Brady, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.
Jennifer M. Williams, Fargo, ND, plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Victoria C. Hicks (argued) and Leslie J. Aldrich (on brief), Fargo, ND, for
defendant and appellant.
Williams v. Williams, et al.
No. 20230201
McEvers, Justice.
[¶1] Aron Williams appeals from a third amended judgment modifying his
child support obligation, arguing the district court erred in calculating his
income for child support purposes by improperly categorizing him as a “farm
manager” and imputing income based on that designation. We hold the court
did not clearly err when it imputed the North Dakota statewide average
income of a farmer to Aron Williams for purposes of child support. Aron
Williams also argues that the court erred with respect to its decisions on
evidentiary matters and awarding attorney’s fees to Jennifer Williams. We
conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s
motion to reopen the record or in awarding attorney’s fees. We affirm.
I
[¶2] Aron Williams and Jennifer Williams have two children together and
divorced in February 2018. Jennifer Williams was awarded primary
residential responsibility of the children. Aron Williams was ordered to pay
child support based on his classification as an experienced farmer with an
imputed gross annual income of $97,164. In July 2019, Aron Williams moved
to modify child support. The district court found Aron Williams was employed
as a farm laborer earning $38,260 as gross annual income and received in-kind
annual income of $11,220. The court ordered a modified child support
obligation and entered the first amended judgment. The court later entered a
second amended judgment modifying parenting time which was affirmed on
appeal. See Williams v. Williams, 2021 ND 134, 962 N.W.2d 601.
[¶3] In June 2022, Jennifer Williams moved to modify the second amended
judgment, seeking modification of parenting time provisions, increased child
support, and for contempt for violating the judgment. The district court
scheduled a hearing on the motion for September 2022. Prior to the hearing, a
discovery dispute arose between the parties. Jennifer Williams moved to
compel discovery and to continue the child support modification hearing until
1
Aron Williams provided the requested discovery responses. The court granted
Jennifer Williams’s motion on the issues of parenting time and contempt, and
continued the child support issue.
[¶4] In November 2022, the district court held a hearing on Jennifer
Williams’s motion to compel. The court granted Jennifer Williams’s motion to
compel, finding Aron Williams failed to answer or respond to discovery
requests by providing evasive or incomplete answers or responses, and such
conduct was not substantially justified. The court ordered Aron Williams to
pay $4,185 to Jennifer Williams for her reasonable expenses incurred in
bringing the motion to compel.
[¶5] A hearing on the child support issue was held in February 2023. Jennifer
Williams, Aron Williams, and Aron Williams’s father, Lyle Williams, testified
at the hearing. After the child support hearing, Aron Williams moved to reopen
the record, arguing it was necessary to clarify Lyle Williams’s testimony at the
evidentiary hearing and to submit additional exhibits. Jennifer Williams
opposed the motion. The district court denied the motion to reopen the record,
finding Aron Williams failed to show a sufficient basis for reopening the
evidentiary record.
[¶6] The district court found Aron Williams failed to provide reliable
information regarding his earning income, particularly his in-kind income. The
court found Aron Williams received significant in-kind income from his family
and determined his total in-kind annual income was at least $52,627.88. The
court also found information about Aron Williams’s income could not be
reasonably obtained from sources other than him, and his family members who
employed him were not willing to provide such information. Because reliable
information was not available to determine his income, the court determined
his income must be imputed under N.D. Amin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6)(b).
[¶7] To determine Aron Williams’s gross annual income, the district court
compared his job duties to the descriptions of “Farmers, Ranchers, and Other
Agricultural Managers” and “Farm Laborers or Farm Workers” in the 2021
Employment and Wages by Occupation report published by Job Service of
2
North Dakota (“Job Service report”). The court found Aron Williams was a
farmer based on Aron Williams’s past farming experience, active participation
in major farming activities, and help coordinating the operation of his parent’s
and extended family’s farming operation. The court also found Aron Williams
did not perform the duties of a farm laborer or farm worker listed in the Job
Service report. Based on the statewide average annual earnings of a farmer in
North Dakota, the court imputed income of $107,300, resulting in a $1,842
monthly child support obligation after deductions.
[¶8] The district court entered the order for third amended judgment and the
third amended judgment in April 2023. Aron Williams timely appeals.
II
[¶9] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in denying his motion to
reopen the record to clarify Lyle Williams’s testimony about his lack of ability
to perform the duties of a farmer and for him to present additional evidence
relating to the pay and qualifications of a farmer in North Dakota.
[¶10] Reopening the record is an evidentiary issue subject to the abuse of
discretion standard. See Innis-Smith v. Smith, 2018 ND 34, ¶ 13, 905 N.W.2d
914 (“District courts have broad discretion in allowing or refusing to allow a
party, after having rested, to reopen the record to introduce additional
evidence.”). “A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary,
unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies
the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process
leading to a reasoned decision.” Id.[¶11] The district court concluded the record did not need to be reopened to
include this additional evidence because Lyle Williams had already answered
specific questions about Aron Williams’s duties involving farm management,
and the additional evidence was largely irrelevant. The court found Aron
Williams had ample time to prepare his witness and present evidence of his job
qualifications. Aron Williams does not argue that the proffered evidence could
not have been presented at the time of the evidentiary hearing. See Vandal v.
Leno, 2014 ND 45, ¶¶ 26-29, 843 N.W.2d 313 (concluding the district court did
3
not err when it denied the motion to reopen the record because the evidence
sought to be included could have been obtained earlier).
[¶12] Under the circumstances of this case, the district court’s findings are not
arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable, nor did the court misinterpret or
misapply the law in determining that reopening the record was not justified.
We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s
motion to reopen the record.
III
[¶13] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in calculating his income
to determine his child support obligation.
[¶14] Our standard of review for child support decisions is well established:
Child support determinations involve questions of law which are
subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are
subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in
some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of
discretion standard of review. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous
if 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 that a mistake has been made.
Updike v. Updike, 2022 ND 99, ¶ 5, 974 N.W.2d 360 (quoting Schrodt v.
Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 19, 971 N.W.2d 861). “The amount of child support
calculated under the guidelines is rebuttably presumed to be the correct
amount of child support in all child support determinations.” Thompson v.
Johnson, 2018 ND 142, ¶ 9, 912 N.W.2d 315 (quotations omitted).
[¶15] Chapter 75-02-04.1, N.D. Admin. Code, governs child support
determinations. Thompson, 2018 ND 142, ¶ 9. The district court must have
sufficient reliable information relating to the obligor’s income in order to arrive
at a proper child support calculation. Schurmann v. Schurmann, 2016 ND 69,
¶ 20, 877 N.W.2d 20 (noting a district court cannot rely on inaccurate or
incomplete information to arrive at a child support calculation); N.D. Admin.
Code § 75-02-04.1-02(7) (“Income must be sufficiently documented through the
4
use of tax returns, current wage statements, and other information to fully
apprise the court of all gross income.”). If the obligor fails to provide reliable
information regarding his gross income from earnings, and that information
cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources, income must be imputed.
N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6).
[¶16] Gross income includes salaries, wages, overtime wages, and income
imputed based upon earning capacity. N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(4)(b).
“‘Earnings’ includes in-kind income and amounts received in lieu of actual
earnings, such as social security benefits, workers’ compensation wage
replacement benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans’ benefits,
and earned income tax credits . . . .” N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(1)(a).
A
[¶17] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in considering his in-kind
income and improperly relied on incredible testimony.
[¶18] In the order imputing income to Aron Williams, the district court made
findings with respect to his total gross income from earnings, including his
wage-related farming income and in-kind income. The court considered in-kind
income, but found Aron Williams was not credible and the evidence presented
by Jennifer Williams on in-kind income for his housing was not sufficient proof
to determine his in-kind income for housing. This Court does not reweigh the
evidence or reassess a witness’s credibility on appeal. Eberle v. Eberle, 2009
ND 107, ¶ 26, 766 N.W.2d 477. The purpose of the district court’s finding on
the amount of in-kind income was only to determine whether Aron Williams’s
total earned income of his wages and the proven in-kind income exceeded the
income of a farmer. The court noted, “[H]is total earned income (wages plus in-
kind income) is lower than $107,300.00.”
[¶19] Aron Williams does not challenge the district court’s finding that he
failed to provide reliable information about his gross income, specifically his
earned income reflected on his tax returns. Aron Williams only challenges the
court’s finding on his in-kind income.
5
[¶20] The district court was required to consider the value of any in-kind
income when determining an obligor’s gross income for purposes of calculating
child support. See Schurmann, 2016 ND 69, ¶ 21; N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-
04.1-01(5) (defining “in-kind income”). Here, the court found Aron Williams did
not provide reliable information regarding his earned and in-kind income.
[¶21] We conclude the district court did not misapply the law in considering
Aron Williams’s in-kind income. We need not consider whether the court’s
finding of total in-kind income is clearly erroneous because the issue is moot;
the court did not rely on the in-kind income to determine his gross income.
B
[¶22] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in relying on the North
Dakota Job Service information because it was not a reliable source.
[¶23] If the obligor fails to provide sufficient reliable information for
determining his income, district courts must look to a source demonstrating
statewide average earnings to determine the obligor’s income for child support
calculations. See Edison v. Edison, 2023 ND 141, ¶ 40, 994 N.W.2d 151 (citing
Schurmann, 2016 ND 69, ¶¶ 21, 22; Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 24) (“District
courts must refer to a source demonstrating the average earnings for the entire
state of North Dakota; evidence of average earnings for a different geographic
area is insufficient. The statewide average earning reports published by Job
Service of North Dakota are sufficient.”).
[¶24] Here, the district court relied on the Job Service report, which details
North Dakota’s statewide average earnings. Aron Williams argues the court
erred in relying on the Job Service report because it contains inaccurate
information and, therefore, is an unreliable source to determine statewide
average earnings.
[¶25] At the evidentiary hearing, Aron Williams offered into evidence the Job
Service report, which the district court accepted into evidence. The exhibit
included “farmers” within the “Management and Occupations” group and
6
“farm laborers” within the “Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations”
group and described the duties associated with each position.
[¶26] By offering the Job Service report into evidence to the district court
without challenging its validity, Aron Williams waived the argument about its
reliability. See Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695, 702 (N.D. 1995)
(concluding appellant’s failure to object to the use of financial documents he
provided to the district court or challenge their validity prior to the appeal
waived his evidentiary challenges). We conclude Aron Williams waived any
argument related to the accuracy of the Job Service report and, therefore,
decline to further address the issue.
C
[¶27] Aron Williams argues the district court erred in categorizing him as a
farmer because he lacked the qualifications for that position and the testimony
provided showed “farm laborer” was a more applicable job title.
[¶28] The Job Service report describes the job duties of “Farmers, Ranchers,
and Other Agricultural Managers” as follows:
Plan, direct, or coordinate the management or operation of farms,
ranches, greenhouses, aquacultural operations, nurseries, timber
tracts, or other agricultural establishments. May hire, train, and
supervise farm workers or contract for services to carry out the
day-to-day activities of the managed operation. May engage in or
supervise planting, cultivating, harvesting, and financial and
marketing activities.
The Job Service report describes the job duties of “Farmworkers and Laborers,
Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse” as:
Manually plant, cultivate, and harvest vegetables, fruits, nuts,
horticultural specialties, and field crops. Use hand tools, such as
shovels, trowels, hoes, tampers, pruning hooks, shears, and knives.
Duties may include tilling soil and applying fertilizers;
transplanting, weeding, thinning, or pruning crops; applying
pesticides; or cleaning, grading, sorting, packing, and loading
7
harvested products. May construct trellises, repair fences and
farm buildings, or participate in irrigation activities.
The district court found Aron Williams’s experience and duration of farming
meant he was “qualified to plan, direct, or coordinate the management or
operation of farms; to hire, train, and supervise farm workers; and to engage
in or supervise planting, cultivating, harvesting, and financial activities,” and
no evidence showed he performed the listed duties of a farmworker or laborer.
[¶29] Based on the documents, testimony, and exhibits received, the district
court found: Aron Williams had been farming for approximately 20 years when
he met Jennifer Williams; he farmed his own land and engaged in a farming
operation with his family; and he “seeded, combined, dug, fertilized, and
sprayed on Lyle Williams’s and other family members’ land. No significant part
(if any) of Aron’s activities involved manually planting, cultivating, or
harvesting or using hand tools.” The court also found “the most reliable
evidence was that they (Lyle, Aron, and other family members) helped each
other and the farming operation was a joint endeavor,” despite Lyle Williams’s
assertion that he simply instructed Aron Williams on what to do at the farm.
Considering the evidence presented, the court found Aron Williams performed
the duties of a farmer.
[¶30] The evidence in the record supports the district court’s findings
categorizing Aron Williams as a farmer. Therefore, we conclude the court’s
finding that Aron Williams was employed as a farmer is not clearly erroneous.
D
[¶31] Aron Williams argues the district court erred by imputing income at
100% of the farmer category, relying on N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(5).
[¶32] Aron Williams’s reliance on N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(5) is
misplaced as that provision applies to obligors who are self-employed. While
Aron Williams’s tax returns reflected some income from self-employment, the
majority of his income reflected on his tax returns was from other sources. Aron
Williams did not argue to the district court that he was self-employed.
8
[¶33] Under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(6) (2022)1, the district court
must impute income when the obligor fails to provide sufficient information to
determine gross income, and must apply the method providing the greatest
amount:
If the obligor fails, upon reasonable request made in any
proceeding to establish or review a child support obligation, to
furnish reliable information concerning the obligor’s gross income
from earnings, and if that information cannot be reasonably
obtained from sources other than the obligor, income must be
imputed based on the greatest of:
a. A monthly amount equal to one hundred sixty-seven times
the hourly federal minimum wage.
b. An amount equal to one hundred percent of this state’s
statewide average earnings for persons with similar work
history and occupational qualifications.
c. An amount equal to one hundred percent of the obligor’s
greatest average gross monthly earnings, in any twelve
consecutive months included in the current calendar year
and the two previous calendar years before commencement
of the proceeding before the court, for which reliable
evidence is provided.
[¶34] Because Aron Williams failed to provide sufficient reliable information
about his income, the district court applied the greatest amount under section
75-02-04.1-07(6), which was “[a]n amount equal to one hundred percent of this
state’s statewide average earnings for persons with similar work history and
occupational qualifications.” The state average income for a farmer in North
Dakota is $107,300, according to the Job Service report. Based on the imputed
income, and after deductions, the court found Aron Williams owed $1,842 per
month in child support. The court’s calculation of Aron Williams’s child support
obligation is supported by the record and the court correctly applied the law.
1 Section 75-02-04.1-07(6), N.D. Admin. Code, was amended on July 1, 2023. The pre-July 2023 version
quoted here was the applicable guideline at the time of this action.
9
Therefore, the court did not err in finding Aron Williams owed $1,842 per
month in child support.
IV
[¶35] Aron Williams argues the district court erred by awarding Jennifer
Williams $4,185 in attorney’s fees. Aron Williams argues he made a good faith
effort to comply with discovery requests; specifically, that he had supplemented
discovery six times at the time of the third amended judgment, produced a
substantial amount of financial information, and complied with
interrogatories. Jennifer Williams argues the court did not abuse its discretion
in awarding her attorney’s fees relating to the motion to compel under
N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).
[¶36] Whether to award attorney’s fees, in conjunction with a discovery
violation, is generally within the discretion of the district court, and this Court
will not disturb a court’s decision unless the court abuses its discretion. Datz
v. Dosch, 2014 ND 102, ¶ 22, 846 N.W.2d 724. If a motion to compel is granted,
the court must require the party that necessitated the motion to pay the other
party’s reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion, unless an
exception applies. N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).
[¶37] The district court found Jennifer Williams made a good faith effort to
resolve the discovery dispute, she had a sufficient basis to bring the motion to
compel, and that Aron Williams avoided providing the requested documents.
Aron Williams does not argue that an exception to awarding attorney’s fees
applies. We conclude the court’s award of attorney’s fees is supported by the
record. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Jennifer
Williams attorney’s fees.
V
[¶38] We affirm the third amended judgment, the order denying Aron
Williams’s motion to reopen the record, and award of attorney’s fees.
10
[¶39] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
11