and therefore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in finding the law firm
in contempt of court for failure to comply
with the order.
Stock v. Stock, 2016 ND 1, 873
N.W.2d 38
While purportedly expressing a preference
for rehabilitative spousal support as
opposed to permanent spousal support,
and stating that rehabilitative spousal
support is preferred in cases in which
the disadvantaged spouse will be able
to retrain to an independent economic
status, the Supreme Court, nevertheless,
held that when there is a substantial
disparity between the spouses’ incomes
that cannot be readily adjusted by property
division or rehabilitative support, it may be
appropriate for a court to award indefinite
permanent support to maintain the
disadvantaged spouse. While purporting
to have done away with the disadvantaged
spouse nomenclature, the Supreme Court
nevertheless held that permanent support
may be “appropriate to equitably share the
overall reduction in the party’s separate
standard of living,” even where a spouse is
capable of rehabilitation. The Court further
held that although a spouse’s youth, health,
and capability for rehabilitation favor
rehabilitative support, such factors do not
preclude a permanent support award where
the totality of the circumstances so warrant.
The Court held that it was significant
that the disadvantaged spouse was unable
to command an income comparable to
that of her former spouse, even after
retraining, in part, by virtue of foregoing
employment prospects in order to further
the other spouse’s career. The Court noted
that a difference in earning power can
be considered when determining spousal
support. Accordingly, a 4 – 1 majority of
the Court upheld the Trial Court’s award
of permanent spousal support. Justice
Sandstrom lodged a strong dissent calling
for an end to the “spousal support lottery,”
requesting that timely legislation address
the issue.
SUMMER 2016
21