from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Susan Lynne Bailey, Judge.
R. Brothers, for plaintiff and appellee, and cross-appellant.
Jerilynn Brantner Adams, and Joshua Benson (on brief), for
defendant and appellant, and cross-appellee.
1] Sandra Adams appeals and John Adams cross-appeals from a
district court order calculating and dividing profits earned
by the parties' jointly-owned businesses. The order also
requires her to reimburse him for payments he made relating
to the Radisson Hotel renovation and pay one-half of the
parties' 2012 taxes. We affirm in part, reverse in part
2] The district court granted the parties a divorce in April
2013 and after an October 2013 trial issued an amended
supplemental judgment in June 2014 dividing the parties'
complex marital estate valued at approximately $46, 500, 000.
Sandra Adams appealed the decision and this Court affirmed in
Adams v. Adams, 2015 ND 112, 863 N.W.2d 232.
3] The judgment dividing the marital estate required the
parties to equally share the profits of their jointly-owned
businesses from April 2, 2013, through January 2014. The
parties disagreed over the profits generated from the
businesses during that time. Each party hired an accountant
to calculate the business profits. The parties' profit
calculations differed by approximately $1.5 million in cash
retained by the businesses due to depreciation expenses. John
Adams' accountant deducted the $1.5 million from his
profit calculation. Sandra Adams' accountant included the
$1.5 million in his profit calculation.
4] After a hearing where the accountants testified the
district court used John Adams' profit calculation and
found the parties' businesses generated net profits of
approximately $1, 134, 000 from January 2013 through January
2014. The court also found John Adams made tax payments,
credit card payments and payments relating to the Radisson
Hotel renovation on Sandra Adams' behalf. After crediting
Sandra Adams for her share of the profits the court ordered
her to reimburse John Adams $342, 191 for payments made on
5] Sandra Adams and John Adams each raise issues on appeal
and cross-appeal regarding the district court's
determination of the parties' business profits. Sandra
Adams argues the court erred by failing to add back non-cash
deductions for depreciation and amortization. John Adams
argues the court erred by including profits earned in
January, February and March 2013.
6] The district court's determination of business profits
are a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous
standard of review. See, e.g., Keller
v. Bolding, 2004 ND 80, ¶ 24, 678 N.W.2d 578
(district court's determination of damages for lost
profits is a finding of fact). A finding of fact is clearly
erroneous if no evidence supports it, it is induced by an
erroneous view of the law or after reviewing all the evidence
we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has
been made. Gabaldon-Cochran v. Cochran, 2015 ND 214,
¶ 5, 868 N.W.2d 501. "This Court views the evidence
in the light most favorable to the findings, and the district
court's findings of fact are presumptively correct."
Id. (quoting Feist v. Feist, 2015 ND 98,
¶ 4, 862 N.W.2d 817).
7] Paragraph 43 of the amended supplemental divorce judgment
requires the parties to share the business profits:
"Consistent with the parties' interim agreement, for
the period April 2, 2013 through January 31, 2014, the
combined profits or losses resulting from the parties'
jointly owned business enterprises shall be shared equally,
making appropriate allowances for the monthly draws each
party has received pursuant to paragraph 1 of that agreement.
The parties shall be expected to agree as to the selection of
any accountant required to make the necessary computations.
If they are ...