Background
Bradley A. Schlenker appealed from a divorce judgment distributing the marital property and debt of Bradley and Bethany A. Schlenker. The appeal came from the District Court of McIntosh County, Southeast Judicial District, with the Honorable Daniel D. Narum identified as the district court judge. The State of North Dakota participated as the statutory real party in interest. Timothy P. Hill represented Bradley Schlenker on brief, and Kelsey L. Hankey represented Bethany Schlenker on brief.
Bradley challenged a substantially unequal distribution. He argued that the district court clearly erred because the distribution was not supported by the Ruff-Fischer factors and because the court did not adequately explain the disparity. The Supreme Court described the marriage as short-term. It also noted that the district court had adopted Bethany Schlenker’s proposed findings verbatim.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). It held that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Citing Wald v. Wald, 2020 ND 174, ¶ 19, 947 N.W.2d 359, the court explained that a marital property distribution is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. A distribution need not be equal to be equitable, but the district court must explain a substantial disparity.
The verbatim adoption of Bethany’s proposed findings did not itself require reversal. Although the Supreme Court disapproved of that practice, it stated that adopted findings will be upheld when they adequately explain the court’s rationale and are not clearly erroneous, citing Kershaw v. Finnson, 2022 ND 165, ¶ 18, 980 N.W.2d 40.
Here, the district court explained the disparity through findings concerning the source of the parties’ property, which party incurred the debts and why, Bethany Schlenker’s disability, and the parties’ conduct during the marriage. The Supreme Court cited Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71, ¶ 25, 830 N.W.2d 571, and Schiff v. Schiff, 2013 ND 142, ¶ 14, 835 N.W.2d 810. It concluded that the record supported those findings. Bradley’s arguments, by contrast, asked the court to reweigh evidence and reassess witness credibility. Citing Datz v. Dosch, 2013 ND 148, ¶ 22, 836 N.W.2d 598, the court reiterated that the district court is better positioned to judge credibility and determine property values.
Key Takeaways
- A substantially unequal marital property distribution is not necessarily inequitable, but the district court must adequately explain the disparity.
- Verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings is disapproved, yet it is not independently a basis for reversal when the findings explain the rationale and survive clearly erroneous review.
- Appellate arguments seeking reweighing of evidence or reassessment of witness credibility face the district court’s superior position on credibility and property valuation.
- The affirmance rested on the record and explanations in this short-term marriage, including property sources, debt incurrence, disability, and marital conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between equitable and equal distribution while emphasizing the importance of findings that account for a substantial disparity. It also clarifies that criticism of verbatim adopted findings does not displace the governing clearly erroneous standard or automatically produce reversal.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the need to challenge the sufficiency and record support of the district court’s actual findings rather than merely invite appellate reweighing. The Supreme Court’s summary disposition affirmed this divorce judgment; it did not announce that every unequal distribution or every set of verbatim adopted findings must be upheld.