Heinz v. Heinz

[Go to Documents]Filed Apr. 13, 2004[Download as WordPerfect]IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA2004 ND 66

Mark R. Heinz, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Chris M. Heinz, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20030301

Appeal from the District Court of Rolette County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Laurie A. Fontaine, Judge.
AFFIRMED AND MODIFIED IN PART.
Per Curiam.
A. Swain Benson, Benson Law Office, P.C., 616 Main Street, Bottineau, N.D. 58318-1395, for defendant and appellant.
Michael S. McIntee, McIntee Law Firm, 207 Main Street South, P.O. Box 90, Towner, N.D. 58788-0090, for plaintiff and appellee.

Heinz v. Heinz
No. 20030301

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Chris Heinz appealed from an amended judgment of divorce. She argues the trial court clearly erred when it granted her physical custody of their child but granted Mark Heinz joint legal custody.

[¶2] Chris contends the trial court clearly erred when dividing the marital property. She also contends the trial court clearly erred by not granting her rehabilitative spousal support. Finally, Chris argues that under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-08.10, the trial court clearly erred when it ordered her, the physical custodian, to obtain health insurance for their child if Mark could not obtain it at no or nominal cost.

[¶3] During oral argument in this case, both Mark and Chris agreed to modify their divorce judgment in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 14-09-08.10. They agreed that Mark should be required to provide their child's health insurance if it is not available to Chris at no or nominal cost. Because the parties agreed, we order modification of the amended judgment accordingly.

[¶4] We conclude Chris's remaining arguments are without merit, and we affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶5] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner