Helbling v. Helbling , 1995 N.D. LEXIS 234 ( 1995 )

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,

concurring in result.

I agree with the majority opinion. I write separately to balance Justice Sandstrom’s special concurrence concerning nonrecurrent payments and the observation that “[t]his classification is not found in the guidelines.”

Where the “windfall” is clearly one-time, a conclusion not necessarily inherent in the facts of this case, I believe the better procedure is for the trial court to automatically provide for a reduction in support when the effect of the windfall ceases. Such a procedure saves the parties from spending usually scarce monetary resources for court proceedings, as well as time and stress. It also is better judicial economy and saves the dwindling number of trial judges scarce judicial time. We should not require or encourage needless motions. If there is serious doubt whether or not the “windfall” is one-time, the trial court should not provide an automatic reduction but await a motion for reduction if the obligor’s income diminishes.

I agree the guidelines should be followed. Blind adherence is not required where situations arise which are not contemplated by the guidelines. E.g., Bergman v. Bergman, 486 N.W.2d 243 (N.D.1992) [child support guidelines did not provide adequate guidance when multiple families appeared simultaneously before trial court]; Montgomery v. Montgomery, 481 N.W.2d 234 (N.D.1992) [where obligor’s monthly income exceeded maximum amount contemplated by guidelines, court must make further inquiry to determine amount appropriate to children’s needs].

If guidelines must cover every conceivable possibility and courts must await a guideline in every such instance, we do the parties a disservice and we fail in our obligation as a separate and co-equal branch of government.