Heidt v. Heidt
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Amended divorce judgment denying spousal support summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2014 ND 76
Robert M.
Heidt, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Trina A.
Heidt, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20130371
Appeal from the District Court of Walsh
County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable M. Richard Geiger, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Darcie
M. S. Einarson, 640 Hill Ave., Grafton, ND 58237, for plaintiff and appellee.
Patti J. Jensen and John D. Schroeder, 411 Second Street NW, P.O. Box 386,
East Grand Forks, MN 56721-0386, for defendant and appellant.
Heidt v. HeidtNo. 20130371
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Trina Heidt appealed from an amended divorce judgment, challenging the district court's failure to award her permanent spousal support. Trina Heidt claimed the district court's findings of fact under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines were clearly erroneous and lacked specificity. See generally Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845, 852 (N.D. 1966); Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 784, 52 N.W.2d 107, 111 (1952) (establishing relevant factors to be considered in determining spousal support awards). The district court's amended divorce judgment is based on findings of fact that adequately addressed the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and are not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J.
Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.