Introduction

In the case of Brett Michael Kingstone v. Trisa Ranae Tedrow Kingstone (2025 N.D. 40), the Supreme Court of North Dakota addressed several complex issues arising from a child support determination. The dispute originated from a divorce involving a prenuptial agreement, complicated by the presence of a minor child with significant medical and developmental needs, including hemophilia, Fragile X syndrome, and related developmental and speech delays. Key issues discussed in the judgment involve the admissibility and weight of expert testimony, the proper inclusion of income from irrevocable trusts and recurring capital gains in calculating gross income, and the parameters for an upward deviation from the guidelines on child support obligations. Furthermore, the judgment touches upon procedural matters such as motions to amend or clarify the judgment, and the court’s authority to order a life insurance policy as security for future child support payments.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of North Dakota partially affirmed, reversed, and remanded the district court’s decision. The district court had awarded primary residential custody to Trisa Kingstone and imposed a child support obligation upon Brett Kingstone that included both the guideline amount and an upward deviation. The district court’s reliance on expert testimony by a certified public accountant and fraud examiner to assess income, which included trust income and recurring capital gains, was upheld. However, the court’s findings supporting the upward deviation—specifically under subsections concerning increased needs due to the child’s disabilities and the obligor’s enhanced ability to pay—were not sufficiently developed. As a result, the portions of the judgment granting an upward deviation were reversed and remanded for further fact-finding and redetermination. Additionally, the order for a life insurance policy as a security measure was sustained, albeit with instructions to reconsider its amount on remand.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The opinion cites an array of precedents that frame the court’s approach. Significant cases include:

• Condon v. St. Alexius Med. Ctr. – This case was cited to underscore the standard for admissibility of expert testimony and the limited scope for appellate interference when the trial court acts within its discretion.
• Knudson v. Knudson – Frequently referenced for its explanation of income determination in child support cases, this decision emphasizes that a correct finding of an obligor’s net income is crucial and must be supported by sufficient documentation.
• MENCER v. RUCH – Cited for the proposition that the nature of trust income – whether irrevocable or revocable – is not determinative of its inclusion as “gross income” if the obligor receives payments.
• Gerving v. Gerving – This precedent was used to reinforce the exclusion of nonrecurring capital gains and helped frame the discussion around recurring versus sporadic gains.
• Other cases, such as JARVIS v. JARVIS, Nuveen v. Nuveen and Martire v. Martire, provided further context for the statutory criteria under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09, which guides deviations from the standard child support calculations.

These precedents collectively influenced the court’s careful balancing of the child support guidelines against the specific financial realities presented in the case, particularly concerning the inclusion of trust income and recurring capital gains.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning is structured around several pillars. First, the court evaluated the admissibility and weight of expert testimony. While acknowledging the expert’s limitations (such as lack of access to irrevocable trust documents), the court concluded that the testimony was valid as it was “based strictly off” the documented personal and holding company returns.

Next, the court scrutinized the determination of gross income. Relying on statutory definitions and prior case law, the court clarified that income from any source—including irrevocable trust income—must be considered if it appears on tax returns and is not rebutted by adequate evidence. Brett Kingstone’s failure to provide sufficient documentation regarding the irrevocable trusts meant that the district court’s inclusion of these funds in his gross income was appropriate.

The analysis proceeded to address the issue of recurring capital gains. The court found that Brett Kingstone’s ongoing real estate transactions, evidenced by consistent capital gains in multiple years, justified classifying these gains as recurring income. This finding demonstrates the court’s willingness to interpret tax documents broadly and within the context of the child support guidelines.

Finally, the court examined the statutory requirements for upward deviations from the guideline support amount. The upward deviation provisions under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09 require specific factual findings that justify departure from the prescribed amount. In this case, while some demonstration of increased child needs and the obligor’s income capacity was present, the court determined that the record failed to provide detailed or quantifiable findings regarding future medical and educational expenses. Likewise, under the child care provision, the lack of evidence of incurred daycare expenses led to the conclusion that that rationale for an upward deviation was legally insufficient. The reasoning compelled the Court to reverse those portions and remand for enhanced findings supporting any upward deviation.

Impact

The judgment sets an important precedent in several respects. First, it reiterates that courts must exercise meticulous and intelligible fact-finding when deviating from the standard child support guidelines. Particularly in cases involving significant health issues and complex sources of income, such as trust funds and capital gains, courts must clearly articulate the basis for any upward deviation. Second, the decision reinforces the notion that failure to produce adequate documentation — even if tax returns suggest certain income sources — can result in a finding that the lower evidentiary threshold is met in favor of the state’s calculation. Finally, the judgment may influence future cases where similar disputes about the nature of income or the evidentiary basis for deviations arise, urging litigants to provide comprehensive and quantifiable evidence in support of their claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Some of the legal concepts in the judgment may be difficult for non-specialists to grasp. For example:

• Expert Testimony Weight vs. Admissibility: The court clarified that while an expert’s opinion might be weakened by gaps in their review (such as not seeing certain trust documents), this does not automatically render their testimony inadmissible—it merely affects how much weight the jury or judge assigns to it.
• Gross vs. Net Income in Support Calculations: Gross income includes all income sources without exclusions unless those sources are explicitly excluded by statute. Net income is what remains after allowed deductions. The court reaffirmed that meticulous documentation is needed for both determinations.
• Recurring Capital Gains: The distinction is made between one-time gains and recurring income from the sale of assets. The judgment underscores that if a pattern of gains is established over multiple years, they should be considered as income for support calculations even though capital gains are often seen as asset liquidation rather than traditional earned income.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of North Dakota’s decision in Brett Michael Kingstone v. Trisa Ranae Tedrow Kingstone establishes important guidelines regarding the evaluation of expert testimony, the inclusion of various forms of income in child support determinations, and the requisite factual findings for any upward deviation from the guideline support amount. While the court validated the district court’s reliance on tax return evidence and the classification of recurring capital gains and trust income as part of the obligor’s gross income, it found that the factual basis for deviating upward was insufficient. The judgment emphasizes the need for detailed, need-based fact finding in cases where child support calculations are modified significantly, setting a higher evidentiary standard for future proceedings. This decision is likely to impact future child support cases that involve complex income structures and the ongoing needs of children with significant special needs.