Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2021, Sharon Ceynar initiated a divorce action against William Ceynar. Following a bench trial, the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, granted the divorce and divided the marital estate. Sharon received $1,218,903.90 in net assets, while William received $681,827.35. The court ordered the sale of the couple's real estate and mineral interests at public auction, with 55% of the proceeds going to William and 45% to Sharon.William appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its division of the marital estate, particularly given his large inheritance. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that property distribution decisions are not reversed unless clearly erroneous. The court emphasized that the district court's findings are presumed correct and that it does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal.The Supreme Court found that the district court had properly considered the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, which include factors such as the duration of the marriage, the parties' ages, health, and financial circumstances. The district court had noted the long-term nature of the marriage and the need for both parties to have income-generating assets for retirement. Although William argued that his inheritance should result in a larger share of the marital estate, the court found that the district court had appropriately considered this factor and had not erred in its division.The Supreme Court also addressed William's contention that the district court erred in ordering the sale of the real property, noting that the court had the authority to do so to achieve an equitable distribution. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the property division was equitable and not clearly erroneous. View "Ceynar v. Ceynar" on Justia Law

Nathan Zent, who has spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, has been a student at Dickinson State University (DSU) since 2015, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in English with a Political Science Minor. Zent, who uses a motorized wheelchair and an iPad with text-to-speech assistive technology, received vocational rehabilitation (VR) services from the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) from 2015 until May 2023. His individualized plan for employment (IPE) identified an employment outcome of journalist or writer, which DHHS supported until 2022. However, DHHS discontinued Zent’s services, citing concerns about his ability to achieve competitive integrated employment due to his need for significant support.The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of DHHS decided to discontinue Zent’s VR services, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed this decision. Zent appealed to the district court of Stark County, which also affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Zent then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that DHHS’s decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statutes and regulations governing VR services and that the ALJ applied the incorrect standard of proof.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that DHHS did not misapply the statutes and regulations governing VR services in determining that Zent’s chosen employment outcome of journalist or writer was inconsistent with the goal of competitive integrated employment. The court also concluded that the ALJ correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, as the clear and convincing standard only applies to eligibility determinations for VR services, not to determinations regarding specific employment outcomes. View "Zent v. NDDHHS" on Justia Law

In January 2017, Bruce Higgins, Rebekka Higgins, the Estate of Judy Devney, and John L. Devney sought a judgment to quiet title to mineral interests in Williams County and recover oil and gas proceeds. The defendants, Maynard Lund, Kjersti Eide, Don Eide, and Jennifer Eide, denied the allegations and counterclaimed for quiet title. XTO Energy, Inc., Continental Resources, Inc., and Whiting Petroleum, Corp. requested dismissal of the complaint.The District Court of Williams County held a bench trial in April 2018 to interpret a 1964 warranty deed. The court found that the deed reserved Milton Higgins' entire interest in the top parcel and quieted title accordingly, resulting in a 50/50 split of the partnership mineral acres between the successors of Milton Higgins and Howard Lund. The court awarded the plaintiffs $237,000 in royalty damages plus fees and costs. In 2021, the court granted summary judgment motions by the plaintiffs, determining that the 1952 royalty deed conveyed a floating royalty rather than a fixed royalty. Final judgment was entered in January 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the 1964 warranty deed was ambiguous, allowing for extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent, and concluded that the reservation applied to both the top and bottom parcels. The court also found no valid stipulation regarding the interpretation of the 1952 royalty deed and determined that the deed conveyed a floating royalty. The court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the deeds and the division of the suspended oil and gas proceeds. View "Higgins v. Lund" on Justia Law

In May 2024, Darren Hoistad was arrested for driving under the influence and consented to a chemical breath test, which showed a result above the legal limit of 0.08. During the test, the arresting officer instructed Hoistad to continue blowing into the Intoxilyzer 8000 even after the tone stopped and the instrument displayed a zero before the decimal point. Hoistad argued that this deviation from the approved method rendered the test results inadmissible.The hearing officer overruled Hoistad’s objection and suspended his driving privileges for 91 days. Hoistad appealed to the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, which affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. The court found that the Intoxilyzer test was administered in accordance with the approved method and that the deviation did not affect the test's accuracy.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the hearing officer’s finding that the test was conducted in accordance with the approved method was not supported by the evidence. The court noted that the approved method requires the subject to stop blowing when the tone stops, and the officer’s repeated instructions to continue blowing constituted a deviation from the approved method. The court held that the Department of Transportation failed to provide expert testimony on the effect of this deviation on the test’s accuracy and reliability. Consequently, the court determined that the test was not fairly administered and the hearing officer abused his discretion in admitting the test results.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and the hearing officer’s decision to suspend Hoistad’s driving privileges. However, the court denied Hoistad’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, concluding that the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision. View "Hoistad v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

In October 2022, officers responded to a shooting in Bismarck, North Dakota, where Christopher Sebastian was found dead in a vehicle with multiple gunshot wounds. Benjamin Williams was charged with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Evidence collected included a black sweatshirt, face mask, glove, jeans, a .40 caliber pistol, cartridges, and ammunition magazines. Williams's trial began on April 1, 2024, and after six days, the jury found him guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life without parole for murder and five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently. Williams appealed the decision.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Cynthia M. Feland, denied Williams's motion to exclude new witness testimony that was not disclosed by the State before the trial. Williams argued that the State's failure to provide this information constituted a Brady violation. The court also rejected Williams's claim of prosecutorial misconduct and his motion for sanctions regarding the non-disclosure of a witness's personnel file.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that no Brady violation occurred because Williams could have obtained the information with reasonable diligence. The court also found that the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, as the statements made were fair comments on the evidence. Additionally, the court declined to address the merits of the claim regarding the non-disclosure of the witness's personnel file, as the issue was not preserved for review. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

B.V. and L.T. are the parents of two children, B.V. and B.V. The children were removed from their home in February 2021 after being left unattended at a crime scene for 13 hours. B.V. was arrested for attempted murder and burglary, and L.T. could not be located. A temporary custody order was issued to the Mountain Lakes Human Service Zone. B.V. was later convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, with an estimated release date in January 2030. L.T. has not had contact with the Zone since the termination of parental rights petition was filed.The children were adjudicated as needing protection in October 2021, and a 12-month custody order was issued to the Zone. A permanency hearing in November 2022 extended the custody order by six months. The children were taken to Arizona by their maternal aunt in April 2023, but the placement was unsuccessful, and they returned to North Dakota in September 2023. L.T. sporadically attempted visitation but lost contact with the Zone in February 2024. B.V. had minimal contact with the Zone and did not engage in the services offered.The Juvenile Court of Rolette County terminated B.V. and L.T.'s parental rights on October 18, 2024. B.V. appealed, arguing that the Zone did not make active efforts to prevent the breakup of his Indian family as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody by B.V. would likely result in serious harm to the children.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the termination of B.V.'s parental rights. The court found that the Zone made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family, including offering supervised visits and conducting relative searches. The court also found that continued custody by B.V. would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children, supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness. View "Interest of B.V." on Justia Law

Kristine Gail Walden and Shay Alan Walden were married in April 2016 and separated in June 2020. Kristine initiated divorce proceedings in September 2022. At the time of the trial in December 2023, Kristine was 54 and worked part-time, while Shay, 53, was self-employed. The district court heard testimony about their assets, debts, and the conduct leading to the breakdown of their marriage, including domestic violence by Shay that resulted in a permanent eye injury to Kristine. The court divided the marital property and debt, ordered Shay to pay spousal support of $1,000 per month for seven years, property payments totaling $43,587, and attorney’s fees of $8,350. Shay was also assigned a debt of $35,433.66 incurred after the divorce proceedings began.The district court awarded spousal support based on the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, considering the parties' ages, earning abilities, health, and financial circumstances. The court found Kristine had a monthly income of $2,400 and expenses of $6,400, while Shay had a gross monthly income of $12,500 and expenses of $5,017. The court concluded Kristine needed spousal support and Shay had the ability to pay without undue hardship. Shay’s argument that the court deviated from statutory limits for spousal support was dismissed as the applicable version of the statute was correctly applied.The court’s property and debt distribution was found to be equitable, considering the short-term nature of the marriage and the contributions of each party. Shay’s arguments against the distribution of the marital home’s equity and Kristine’s medical debt were rejected. The court’s decision to assign Shay the debt incurred after the divorce proceedings was also upheld.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the court did not clearly err in its findings and that the award of attorney’s fees was justified based on Shay’s actions that increased the costs of the proceedings. View "Walden v. Walden" on Justia Law

Michael Bullinger invested in Sundog Interactive, Inc. in 1998. In 2019, Sundog negotiated a sale to Perficient, Inc. Bullinger dissented to the sale and demanded fair value for his shares. Sundog estimated the value of Bullinger's shares at $646,106.09, but Bullinger demanded $1,164,102.50. Sundog did not pay the demanded amount, negotiate a different amount, or initiate court proceedings to determine the fair value. Bullinger sued for declaratory judgment and claimed the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties.The District Court of Cass County dismissed Bullinger's claims with prejudice and awarded attorneys' fees to Sundog. Bullinger appealed, arguing the court erred in its interpretation of N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-88(5) and (10), and in finding he was not entitled to damages for breach of fiduciary duties. The North Dakota Supreme Court previously remanded the case for further findings, but the district court again dismissed Bullinger's claims and awarded attorneys' fees to Sundog.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded the district court erred in finding Bullinger was not a dissenting shareholder and not entitled to payment equal to his demand. The court held that Bullinger complied with the statutory requirements and was entitled to payment of his demand since Sundog failed to act within the required sixty days. The court affirmed the district court's finding that there was no breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the award of attorneys' fees and costs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. View "Bullinger v. Sundog Interactive, Inc." on Justia Law

Cory Almklov was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, burglary, and theft of property. His cases were joined for trial, and he was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years for attempted murder, with other sentences running concurrently. His convictions were affirmed on appeal.Almklov filed a pro se application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel among other grounds. The State moved for summary disposition, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that Almklov's claims were barred by res judicata and misuse of process. The district court granted the State's motion, dismissing Almklov's application with prejudice, finding he failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of ineffective assistance.On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Almklov argued that the district court erred in dismissing his application without an evidentiary hearing. He claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to call two witnesses, object to the joinder of his cases, and file a motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement. The court noted that ineffective assistance claims are typically not suited for summary disposition without a hearing but affirmed the lower court's decision because Almklov did not provide any evidence to support his claims.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that Almklov failed to meet his burden of proof for his ineffective assistance claims. He did not show what the uncalled witnesses would have testified, how the joinder of cases prejudiced him, or that a motion to suppress would have been successful. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's summary dismissal of Almklov's postconviction relief application. View "Almklov v. State" on Justia Law

Bryan Carrier and Elizabeth Allmendinger were involved in a relationship that resulted in the birth of a child in 2017. In April 2018, the district court established Carrier’s child support obligation at $3,500 per month. Carrier had two more children after this judgment. In April 2023, the State of North Dakota filed a motion to amend the judgment to reduce Carrier’s child support obligation based on his income information, which Carrier supported. Allmendinger requested an evidentiary hearing and a continuance for discovery.The District Court of Burleigh County held multiple evidentiary hearings on the State’s motion. The State requested a reduction in child support to $1,200 per month from May 2023 and $1,168 per month from January 2024. Carrier agreed with the State’s calculations, while Allmendinger opposed the motion, proposing a higher amount. In May 2024, the district court denied the State’s motion, finding the information provided by the State and Carrier unreliable. However, the court allowed for a child support calculation reduced for multiple families based on the original 2018 financial information. Allmendinger submitted a proposed amended judgment, which the court adopted, setting Carrier’s obligation at $3,278 per month starting June 1, 2024.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. Carrier argued that the district court erred in dismissing the motion to modify child support, claiming the court wrongly found the information provided unreliable. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, as evidence supported the court’s determination that Carrier was evasive and untruthful about his financial information. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, denying the motion to modify child support. Allmendinger’s request for attorney’s fees was denied, as the appeal was not deemed frivolous. View "State v. Carrier" on Justia Law