Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

C.C. is the mother of B.F. and I.F. In November 2021, she left the children with their paternal uncle, who provided a stable home. In November 2022, the children came under the protective custody of the Cass County Human Service Zone (CHSZ) due to concerns of parental abandonment. The whereabouts of A.F., the father, were unknown. In March 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as needing protection and placed them in CHSZ custody for nine months, finding aggravating factors and adopting a reunification plan. In December 2023, CHSZ filed a petition to terminate C.C.'s parental rights but later amended it to extend CHSZ custody for nine months due to C.C.'s progress. In February 2024, the court granted CHSZ custody for an additional nine months with concurrent plans of reunification and termination.In October 2024, CHSZ petitioned to terminate C.C. and A.F.'s parental rights, citing C.C.'s failure to maintain progress on the reunification plan. C.C. attended the initial hearing and a status conference in December 2024 but failed to attend the February 2025 status conference. The court found C.C. and A.F. in default and terminated their parental rights, noting C.C.'s continued drug use, failure to secure stable housing and employment, and lack of consistent participation in visitations and services.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in finding C.C. in default and that the evidence supported the termination of parental rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying C.C.'s motion to vacate the default judgment and concluded that the termination did not violate C.C.'s constitutional due process rights. View "Interest of B.F." on Justia Law

Elizabeth Sanda and Derek Sanda were married in 2016, having started dating in 2014. Elizabeth brought significant assets into the marriage, including trusts and future inheritances protected by a premarital agreement, while Derek had a negative net worth. During the marriage, Elizabeth used her inheritance to fund various expenses, including a home down payment, mortgage payments, and Derek's business operations. Derek contributed through home renovations and his carpentry business, which was not highly profitable. The couple lived beyond their means, relying heavily on Elizabeth's inheritance.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Jackson J. Lofgren, handled the divorce proceedings. The court issued an interim order in February 2024, granting Elizabeth exclusive use of the marital home and her vehicle, while Derek was awarded his vehicle. During the trial, disputes arose over the classification of certain assets and debts, including a vehicle trade and attorney's fees. The court found that Derek improperly dissipated marital property by trading a vehicle without approval and determined that Elizabeth's inheritance, though used during the marriage, should be considered in the property division.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the property division was equitable. The court emphasized the origin of Elizabeth's inheritance and the couple's financial conduct during the marriage. The court also upheld the district court's decisions regarding the valuation date, classification of assets, and responsibility for attorney's fees. The judgment awarded Elizabeth a larger share of the marital estate, with an additional payment to Derek to achieve equity. View "Sanda v. Sanda" on Justia Law

In 2021, a jury convicted an individual of gross sexual imposition involving his 13-year-old cousin, resulting in her pregnancy. DNA evidence established a high probability that he was the father. During the trial, the prosecutor asked an improper question regarding family support for the victim and defendant, which led to a defense objection and a curative instruction from the judge. The defendant moved for a mistrial, which was denied. On direct appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the improper question was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial, as the jury was instructed to disregard it.Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief in the District Court of Cass County, later amending it to argue that three recent North Dakota Supreme Court decisions involving the same prosecutor constituted newly discovered evidence of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct. The district court analyzed the claim under the standard for newly discovered evidence, finding that while the cited cases were decided after the defendant’s trial, they were not material to the issues at trial and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court also held that the claim was barred by res judicata, as the issue of prosecutorial misconduct had already been fully litigated and decided on direct appeal.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief. It held that the recent decisions did not constitute newly discovered evidence material to the trial’s issues and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court further concluded that the claim was barred by res judicata because it had been fully and finally determined on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying postconviction relief. View "Bazile v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, Ciro Gomez was charged and found guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. In September 2024, Gomez filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming a significant change in law and newly discovered evidence proving his innocence. The State moved for summary disposition, and the district court dismissed Gomez’s petition but later granted reconsideration. In January 2025, the court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely without an evidentiary hearing. Gomez appealed.The district court ruled that there had been no substantive change in the law applicable to Gomez’s case. Gomez had relied on State v. Noble, but the court found that Noble did not represent a significant change in the law. The court also determined that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not new, as it was known to Gomez at the time of his trial or discovered more than two years before filing the petition.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Gomez’s petition was untimely and did not meet the exceptions to the two-year filing rule under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3). The court found that the evidence Gomez presented was not newly discovered and that any new information was known to him three years prior, exceeding the two-year limit for filing a postconviction relief application. Therefore, the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Gomez’s petition. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law

Kristina Toppenberg appealed a district court order that granted Zach Toppenberg’s motion to reduce his child support obligation. Zach was originally ordered to pay $1,814 per month based on an annual income of $103,200. In 2023, Zach moved to Arizona, earning $21 per hour at a construction company. He filed a motion to amend his child support obligation, providing his 2023 tax return and recent paystubs. The district court recalculated his income to $43,680 annually and reduced his child support to $875 per month.The district court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, granted Zach’s motion, finding his change in employment was not for the purpose of reducing his child support obligation. The court used his current earnings to calculate the new support amount. Kristina appealed, arguing the modification was inappropriate and the calculation was incorrect, citing unreported income and gifts from Zach’s parents.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the motion to amend child support, finding no clear error in the determination that Zach’s employment change was not to reduce his obligation. However, the Supreme Court found the district court erred in not including $30,000 in gifts and $24,000 of unreported income in Zach’s gross income. The court held that these amounts should have been considered in calculating his net income for child support purposes.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s decision to amend the child support obligation but reversed and remanded the case for recalculation of Zach’s net income, including the omitted gifts and unreported income. View "Toppenberg v. Toppenberg" on Justia Law

Equinor Energy LP operated oil and gas wells in North Dakota and contracted with its affiliate for saltwater gathering services. Versa Energy, LLC, a non-operating working interest owner in these wells, alleged that Equinor overcharged for these services. Versa petitioned the North Dakota Industrial Commission to determine the proper costs, claiming Equinor violated state law by charging more than the "reasonable actual cost" of operation.The North Dakota Industrial Commission concluded it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and determined that Equinor's costs were improper. The Commission set the proper cost for saltwater gathering services at $0.35 per barrel. Equinor appealed to the District Court of McKenzie County, which affirmed the Commission's order.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The court held that the Commission's regulatory authority under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-04 does not extend to adjudicating private contractual disputes. Additionally, the court determined that saltwater gathering costs are post-production costs, which fall outside the scope of "operation of a well" under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-08(2). Therefore, the Commission did not have jurisdiction under this statute to determine the proper costs for saltwater gathering.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and vacated the Commission's order. View "Equinor Energy v. NDIC" on Justia Law

Prisca Fagnon petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Ndorleh Ngaima, alleging harassment on social media, stalking, threats with a knife, and physical violence resulting in a broken nose. A temporary restraining order was issued, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2025. Both parties testified, with Fagnon presenting evidence of a physical assault by Ngaima on July 24, 2023. Ngaima denied the allegations.The District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, found Fagnon's testimony credible and supported by photographic evidence of her injuries. The court determined that the act of physical violence constituted disorderly conduct and issued a restraining order for two years. Ngaima appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by issuing the order without reasonable grounds and that the findings were inadequate.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that the standard for issuing a disorderly conduct restraining order requires reasonable grounds to believe the respondent engaged in disorderly conduct. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as the evidence of physical violence was relevant and sufficient to support the restraining order. The court also addressed the time and distance factors, concluding that the severity of the conduct and the need for controlled contact between the parties justified the order.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the findings were adequate and supported by the evidence. The court emphasized that physical violence is generally intended to adversely affect the safety, security, and privacy of another person, and the district court's credibility determinations were upheld. View "Fagnon v. Ngaima" on Justia Law

Mary Roth and Aric Roth filed a lawsuit against Gary Meyer and other members of the Meyer family, including trustees of the Jean L. Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust, seeking to quiet title to a 10-acre property in Grant County, North Dakota. Gary Meyer had lived on the property since 1962 and believed he owned it, despite a 1982 conveyance to Dolores Meyer’s father, Anthony Ehrmantrout. Gary and Mary Roth cohabitated on the property from 2002 to 2022, during which time Gary conveyed his interest to Mary via quitclaim deed in 2010, and she later conveyed it to her son, Aric.The District Court of Grant County initially found that Gary Meyer had gained title to the property through adverse possession and quieted title in favor of Aric Roth. The court also ordered Gary Meyer to pay Mary Roth $52,500 for loans she had made to him, finding unjust enrichment. The Meyers appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its findings on adverse possession and unjust enrichment.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s finding of unjust enrichment, agreeing that Gary Meyer was enriched by the loans and had not repaid them, thus impoverishing Mary Roth. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred in its adverse possession analysis. The court noted that adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence of actual, visible, continuous, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession for 20 years. The court found the district court’s findings insufficient to establish hostile possession, particularly given the family relationship and lack of evidence of hostile acts.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment on unjust enrichment but reversed the decision to quiet title in favor of Aric Roth. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "Roth v. Meyer" on Justia Law

KJ Carpenter purchased a vacant lot in a development governed by a Declaration of Restrictions and Obligations (DRO) that required all building plans to be approved by the Architectural Review Committee (Committee). Carpenter initially submitted a building proposal with asphalt shingles, which was approved. Later, he submitted an amended plan requesting a full metal roof, which was denied based on the restrictive covenant limiting roofing materials to cedar shakes, cedar shingles, or earth-toned colored shingles.Carpenter filed a lawsuit seeking court approval to construct a home with a full metal roof, arguing that the Committee had previously approved metal roofing for other houses, thereby waiving the restrictive covenant. He also contended that the "no waiver" clause in the DRO did not apply because the Committee's prior approvals were not in response to breaches.The District Court of Burleigh County granted summary judgment in favor of Southbay Homeowners Association, holding that Carpenter failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact. The court found that the restrictive covenant was clear and unambiguous, and the "no waiver" clause allowed the Committee to approve metal roofs for other properties while denying Carpenter's request.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the "no waiver" clause precluded Carpenter from claiming a waiver of the restrictive covenant. The court held that the Committee's approval of partial metal roofs did not constitute a breach, but the two homes with full metal roofs were in violation of the DRO. The court concluded that Carpenter did not demonstrate a clear intent to waive both the restrictive covenant and the "no waiver" clause, and thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. Southbay's request for costs and attorney's fees was denied. View "Carpenter v. Southbay Homeowners Association" on Justia Law

Hope Marie Landsberger was found guilty of providing false information to law enforcement. She reported that Nathan Vetter, with whom she shares custody of their infant child, returned the child with a mouth injury and refused to explain how it occurred. However, a recording of the exchange showed that Landsberger did not speak to Vetter during the exchange, contradicting her claims. Additionally, Vetter had previously explained a different incident involving their child, to which Landsberger had acknowledged. The officer noted that Landsberger's report misled law enforcement and that she had a history of filing unfounded police reports against Vetter.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, held a jury trial where Landsberger was found guilty of willfully giving false information to a law enforcement officer in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-03(1). Landsberger appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the essential elements of the offense with sufficient specificity.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the jury instructions provided by the district court were correct and adequately informed the jury of the applicable law. The instructions specified the date, location, and all elements of the offense as required by the statute. The court found that Landsberger's requested modifications to the jury instructions would have added elements not required by the statute and increased the State's burden of proof. The court concluded that the instructions, taken as a whole, were not erroneous and did not affect a substantial right of the defendant. Therefore, the conviction was upheld. View "State v. Landsberger" on Justia Law