dissenting.
[¶ 24] Even if the district court could have awarded the assets and debts as it did, absent its clearly erroneous finding “that ‘most’ of the marital assets and debts were acquired during the marriage,” how do we know it would have awarded them as it did? We do not.
[¶ 25] Our law is clear:
In distributing marital property, the court must apply the guidelines established under Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952)[,] and Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966), which:
allow the trial court, in making a property distribution, to consider the respective ages of the parties to the marriage; their earning abilities; the duration of the marriage and the conduct of each during the marriage; their station in life; the circumstances and necessities of each; their health and physical conditions; their financial circumstances as shown by the *140property owned at the time; its value and income-producing capacity, if any, and whether it was accumulated, or acquired before or after the marriage; and such other matters as may be material.
Corbett [v. Corbett, 2001 ND 113, 628 N.W.2d 312], at ¶ 12 (quoting Freed v. Freed, 454 N.W.2d 516, 520 n. 3 (N.D. 1990)).
Gleich v. Gleich, 2001 ND 185, ¶ 6, 636 N.W.2d 418 (emphasis added).
[¶ 26] Here, because of the district court’s clearly erroneous finding on a Ruff-Fischer guideline, I would reverse and remand for the district court to properly consider the guideline factors.
[¶ 27] DALE V. SANDSTROM.