Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Steven Kelly and Spirit Energy LLC (collectively "Spirit") appealed a district court order holding them in contempt for failing to return leased vehicles to Kettle Butte Trucking ("KBT"). KBT sued Spirit, alleging Spirit failed to pay numerous lease payments for trucks they leased from KBT. Spirit challenged the district court's underlying order that was alleged to have been violated. Spirit also argued the court did not have jurisdiction to hold it in contempt. When a contempt order is appealed, challenges to the underlying order will not be considered unless the underlying order is also appealed. When a court has issued an allegedly erroneous order, the party to whom the order was issued must obey it as long as it remains in force or until it is reversed on appeal, and the failure to obey the order is punishable as a contempt of court. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order holding Spirit in contempt. View "Kettle Butte Trucking, LLC v. Kelly" on Justia Law

Sandy Botteicher ("Botteicher") appeals from a judgment dismissing her claims against Pam and Darwin Becker (collectively "Beckers") and awarding the Beckers $5,000 for their attorney fees. Botteicher and Pam Becker are sisters and heirs to their mother's estate. Following the death of their father in January 2015, Pam Becker was appointed legal guardian for their mother who was residing in a nursing home. Their mother died in July 2015. A third party was appointed personal representative of their mother's estate ("the estate"). Following the filing of the closing documents by the personal representative, Botteicher filed a number of petitions or motions. In her petitions, Botteicher sought to set aside what the parties refer to as the "Warehouse" transaction, a real property transfer in Dickinson that occurred in 2010 and 2011. Botteicher also requested an evidentiary hearing, objected to the final accounting, sought formal testacy proceedings, sought the disqualification of the attorney representing the personal representative, moved for the appointment of herself as the personal representative and sought to keep the estate open by alleging that numerous items of her mother's personal property were missing from the inventory and appraisement. The probate court denied all of the petitions or motions filed by Botteicher. The court denied the petition seeking to set aside the Warehouse transfer after concluding the personal representative, not Botteicher, had "standing" to assert an action to challenge the Warehouse transfer in the probate proceedings, and that the request to set aside the property transfer was "not properly in front of the Court." In the probate proceedings, Botteicher was attempting to personally initiate an action against the Beckers to set aside a transfer made by the decedent. The probate court issued an order approving the inventory and appraisement as well as the final account and distribution. Botteicher did not appeal the final decree of distribution. Approximately one month after the probate proceedings were closed, Botteicher and her daughter, Alexandra Botteicher, brought this action against the Beckers, alleging multiple claims regarding the estate's transactions under the Beckers. Unsuccessful, Botteicher challenged the district court's determination that some of her claims were previously resolved in separate probate proceedings and were barred by res judicata, that her claim for interference with the right of burial and her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress could be dismissed as a matter of law, and that the Beckers were entitled to an award of attorney fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Botteicher v. Becker" on Justia Law

Charles Erwin appeals from an amended judgment entered in favor of Alerus Financial, N.A., for $5,265,653.09. Starting in 2012 Alerus made a series of loans totaling more than $15 million to Diverse Energy Systems, LLC. The loan agreement specified "Events of Default," including the failure to pay the indebtedness, the insolvency of the borrower or guarantor or the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. Erwin was Diverse's chief executive officer, and he signed multiple personal guaranties, promising to be personally responsible for payment of up to $4 million of Diverse's debt owed to Alerus. In September 2015 Diverse filed for bankruptcy. In May 2016 Alerus sued Erwin for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging Diverse was in default under the loan agreement and Erwin failed to make payment on the amount due under the guaranties. Alerus alleged Diverse's indebtedness exceeded $12 million and under the guaranties Erwin was liable for at least $4 million in principal and interest. On September 6, 2016, Erwin filed an answer to Alerus' complaint. Alerus moved for summary judgment, arguing Diverse defaulted on its loan obligations and Erwin breached the guaranty contracts by failing to pay the amounts due under the guaranties. Alerus also filed an affidavit in support of its motion from an Alerus employee, which it claimed showed the total outstanding principal and interest on the loans to Diverse. Erwin argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court the district court abused its discretion by failing to rule on his motion to amend his answer and entering judgment without allowing him to conduct discovery on Alerus' damage claims. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment. View "Alerus Financial, N.A. v. Erwin" on Justia Law

Glenn Solberg appealed an amended judgment dismissing his claims against the estate of his stepfather, Lyle Nelson ("Lyle Nelson Estate"). Solberg challenged the district court's dismissal of his claim seeking ownership of 100 mineral acres and seeking to enforce an option to purchase real property. The court determined that the mineral interests and real property alleged to be subject to the option were never within the Lyle Nelson Estate and that Solberg's claim was also untimely. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment and granted the Lyle Nelson Estate's request for an award of costs and attorney fees for a frivolous appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 38. View "Estate of Nelson" on Justia Law

Roland Riemers appealed a district court judgment awarding CHS Inc. attorney's fees and costs, and an order denying Riemers' motion to reopen the case and close judgment. Riemers also moved to vacate the district court's "Corrected Amended Judgment." In March 2016, CHS was awarded a money judgment against Riemers for $38,889. In April 2016, Riemers deposited $41,100 into a bank account, apparently to be used for garnishment by CHS. In May 2016, on the motion of CHS, the district court entered an amended judgment ("Amended Judgment") in for $41,793.72 to reflect the prejudgment interest accrued. The North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Amended Judgment as modified, reducing the prejudgment interest amount by $70.07. CHS began collecting on the Amended Judgment by garnishing funds that Riemers held at the bank and another account held by a credit union. The Supreme Court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding CHS attorney's fees and costs on the basis of a frivolous motion, and affirmed the district court judgment. However, because the order denying Riemers' motion to reopen the case and close judgment reflected that the amount owing to CHS was $679.08, instead of the correct amount of $549.08, the Supreme Court modified the order, stating that $549.08 is the outstanding principal balance on the Amended Judgment. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, the Supreme Court vacated the Corrected Amended Judgment. View "CHS Inc. v. Riemers" on Justia Law

Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc. appealed a judgment invalidating its oil and gas construction liens and awarding attorney fees to Mitchell's Oil Field Services, Inc., also known as Wood Group, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (collectively "Mitchell's"). Mitchell's, as general contractor, entered into a contract with Brockett Company, LLC, as subcontractor, and Amber Brockett, as personal guarantor (collectively "Brockett"), to purchase construction materials for installation on certain oil wells. Brockett purchased materials from Rocky Mountain to fulfill Brockett's contract with Mitchell's. Mitchell's paid Brockett in full. Rocky Mountain delivered the materials, and Mitchell's installed the materials. Rocky Mountain thereafter recorded two oil and gas well liens against the wells because Brockett had not paid Rocky Mountain. Mitchell's recorded lien release bonds, with the liens attached to the bonds. Mitchell's received payment in full, then Rocky Mountain filed to foreclose on the liens. The parties agreed Mitchell's paid Brockett in full before Rocky Mountain delivered the materials to the wells and before Mitchell's or the leaseholders received notice of the liens. The parties agreed Rocky Mountain timely and properly satisfied all statutory and other requirements to create, perfect, and foreclose on the liens. Rocky Mountain recorded the liens on well leaseholds by ConocoPhillips Company and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. (the "owners"). Brockett did not answer or appear at any hearings and admitted to nonpayment, but asserted it has no assets with which to pay. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rocky Mountain for its breach of contract claim against Brockett. The parties submitted their remaining claims to the district court solely on interpretation of the oil and gas construction liens provided by N.D.C.C. ch. 35-24. The court found N.D.C.C. 35-24-04 invalidated Rocky Mountain's liens after the owners paid Mitchell's. The primary issue before the North Dakota Supreme Court was whether N.D.C.C. 35-24-04 permitted a subcontractor's oil and gas construction lien when an owner fully paid the general contractor. Rocky Mountain argued the district court erred in finding Rocky Mountain's liens were invalidated when the owners fully paid Mitchell's. The Supreme Court agreed: Section 35-24-02, N.D.C.C., allowed contractors to file liens for unpaid materials furnished or services rendered "in the drilling or operating of any oil or gas well upon such leasehold." The district court erred in interpreting N.D.C.C. sections 35-24-04 and -07 to invalidate Rocky Mountain's liens, and also erred in awarding attorney fees to Mitchell's. View "Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc. v. Brockett Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Gene Grasser appealed an amended judgment entered from March 2017, awarding primary residential responsibility to Stephanie Grasser and distributing marital property and debts. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gene's request for recusal or by finding Gene in contempt and awarding sanctions which it did not reimburse. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not clearly err by awarding Stephanie primary residential responsibility of the parties' child or by distributing the parties' marital property and debts. View "Grasser v. Grasser" on Justia Law

Gene Grasser appealed an amended judgment entered from March 2017, awarding primary residential responsibility to Stephanie Grasser and distributing marital property and debts. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gene's request for recusal or by finding Gene in contempt and awarding sanctions which it did not reimburse. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not clearly err by awarding Stephanie primary residential responsibility of the parties' child or by distributing the parties' marital property and debts. View "Grasser v. Grasser" on Justia Law

R.B. appealed a district court order granting J.B. a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order against him. R.B. and J.B. began dating in April 2017 when they both lived in Vermont. Each was sixteen years old at the time. J.B. and her mother, Jodie Jacobs ("Jacobs"), moved to North Dakota. Jacobs stated that she noticed a change in J.B.'s behavior after the move, including J.B. being more distant from Jacobs and spending more time on her cell phone. Jacobs attributed this change to J.B.'s relationship with R.B. Jacobs, on behalf of J.B., petitioned a North Dakota district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against R.B. The petition alleged: R.B. threatened suicide, which caused J.B. to visit a counselor for three hours; R.B. stated that "J.B. is mine" to Jacobs; R.B. told J.B. to stop posting pictures of herself smiling because he didn't want to see her happy without him; R.B. told J.B. to not be friends with girls that smoke cigarettes because doing so would prevent her from becoming "the doctor she wanted to be"; R.B. told J.B. to wear his ring and sweatshirt, to not speak to any guys "ever," and to disrespect Jacobs; R.B. indicated to J.B. that if she did not do what she said she was going to do, "he would possibly hurt himself"; J.B. cried and told Jacobs that she did not want to see R.B. die; R.B. told Jacobs that "he will not stop" and that she could not control J.B. when she is eighteen; and R.B. sent a message to J.B.'s Snapchat account that said "bad mother alert." The district court issued a temporary restraining order; then after a hearing, the district court issued a two-year restraining order against R.B. R.B. argued the petition lacked reasonable grounds showing that he engaged in "intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy" of J.B. The North Dakota Supreme Court stated that "[i]t is not enough under the statute that the petitioner for a restraining order wants the other person out of the petitioner's life. . . . Subjective fear is insufficient to support a disorderly conduct restraining order." Because the Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in granting the disorderly conduct restraining order against R.B., it reversed. View "J.B. v. R.B." on Justia Law

Ricky and Darcy Berg married in 1984 and separated in January 2016. The district court held a trial in June 2017 to determine the distribution of marital property and spousal support. At trial, both parties testified about their marital property, marital debts, income, and expenses. Ricky Berg was represented by counsel, and Darcy Berg represented herself at trial. Ricky Berg appealed the district court’s judgment dividing his and Darcy's marital estate and award to Darcy spousal support. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court did not clearly err in dividing property and awarding spousal support when it considered the “Ruff-Fischer” factors and adequately explained its findings regarding property division and spousal support. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Berg v. Berg" on Justia Law