Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sarah Shively initiated divorce proceedings against Kyle Shively, seeking primary residential responsibility for their three school-age children. The marital home, which was Kyle's family farmstead, is located in Pleasant Lake, North Dakota. During the separation, Kyle moved to Rugby, North Dakota. Both parties proposed different parenting plans, with Sarah seeking primary residential responsibility and Kyle seeking either primary or equal residential responsibility.The District Court of Benson County, Northeast Judicial District, held a two-day bench trial and awarded Sarah primary residential responsibility and the marital home. Kyle appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decisions regarding residential responsibility, parenting time, and the distribution of the marital home.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found that the district court failed to provide sufficient specificity in its findings to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the district court's findings, particularly regarding the best interest factors for awarding primary residential responsibility. The district court's findings were contradictory, and it did not adequately explain why equal residential responsibility was not considered.Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not address summer parenting time for Kyle, despite acknowledging its importance. The district court also failed to explain its decision to award the marital home to Sarah, despite the sentimental value and origin of the property being significant factors.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the court’s decisions regarding primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and property distribution. View "Shively v. Shively" on Justia Law

Sarah Knell and Catlin Kinden, who married in 2003 and have four children, divorced in October 2020. They initially agreed to share equal residential responsibility for their children, with the children spending most of the school year with Knell. Conflicts arose, particularly regarding the medical care of their two minor children, B.K. and P.K., who require medication. Kinden meticulously monitored P.K.'s diabetes care, often initiating conflicts with Knell over it. In July 2021, Kinden moved to modify residential responsibility, alleging Knell's disregard for the children's health. The district court ordered mediation, which was unsuccessful.In December 2021, Knell filed a countermotion to modify residential responsibility. The parties agreed to a parenting investigation, which did not recommend changing their equal residential responsibility. They signed a stipulation to modify the judgment, which the court adopted in September 2022. In 2023, Kinden moved to Bismarck, prompting Knell to seek primary residential responsibility, arguing that the two-year moratorium on modifications did not apply due to Kinden's relocation. Both parties made prima facie cases for modification, leading to an evidentiary hearing in July 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming the district court's decision. The court found that N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6, which governs modifications of primary residential responsibility, did not apply as there was no prior order establishing primary residential responsibility. Instead, the court made an original determination based on the best interests of the children, weighing the factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1). The court concluded that awarding Kinden primary residential responsibility was in the children's best interests, particularly due to his diligence in addressing their medical and educational needs. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the district court's findings and affirmed the second amended judgment. View "Kinden v. Kinden" on Justia Law

An unmarried couple, K.L.T. and M.O.J., filed a petition on September 27, 2024, to adopt three children who had been in their care since early 2022. The Cass County District Court denied their petition on October 8, 2024, citing North Dakota Century Code § 14-15-03(2), which the court interpreted as not permitting unmarried couples to jointly adopt. The case was subsequently dismissed.Following the dismissal, K.L.T. and M.O.J. moved for reconsideration on October 14, 2024. Although the district court found them to be suitable adoptive parents, it denied the motion for reconsideration. The court then certified a question to the North Dakota Supreme Court, asking whether an unmarried couple can adopt children under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-03(2), noting the absence of controlling precedent in North Dakota.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed whether to answer the certified question. Under Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court has the discretion to answer certified questions of law if they are determinative of the proceeding and if there is no controlling precedent. However, the court determined that answering the certified question would be purely advisory since the petition had been dismissed and the time to appeal had expired. Consequently, there was no existing case that could be resolved by answering the question.The North Dakota Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question and dismissed the proceeding. View "K.L.T. v. NDDHHS" on Justia Law

Benjamin Jones and Melanie Jones were married in 2003 and have two minor children. They resided in Glenburn, North Dakota, and purchased a modular home and surrounding acreage from Melanie's parents under a contract for deed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, payments on the contract were suspended, and no payments have been made since, leaving an outstanding debt. In March 2023, Benjamin filed for divorce. In February 2024, Melanie's father notified the parties of his intention to declare default and cancel the contract for deed. The trial was held later that month.The District Court of Renville County granted the divorce, awarded primary residential responsibility of the children to Benjamin, and divided the property and debts. The court found zero equity in the marital home due to nonpayment and the intention to foreclose. It reserved ruling on the final value of the marital home and debt consolidation loan for six months. The court awarded Melanie spousal support of $900 per month for 10 years and ordered her to pay $590 per month in child support.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the award of primary residential responsibility to Benjamin, finding no clear error in the lower court's decision. However, it reversed the lower court's reservation of ruling on the marital home and debt consolidation loan valuations, as well as the valuation of the marital home and corresponding debt without specific findings on the valuation date. The Supreme Court also found error in the child support calculation for omitting spousal support and in-kind income.The Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower court to clarify the valuation date for the marital property and debt, make specific findings if another valuation date is fair and equitable, redistribute the marital estate if valuations change, reconsider spousal support in light of any redistribution, and recalculate child support to include spousal support. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law

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

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

Brett Kingstone and Trisa Tedrow Kingstone were married in Florida in July 2020 and have one minor child, L.R.K., born in 2021, who has hemophilia, Fragile X syndrome, and developmental and speech delays. The couple separated in August 2022, and Brett initiated a divorce action in Florida and a child custody action in North Dakota in March 2023. The Florida court granted the divorce in August 2023, but did not address child-related issues. In December 2023, the North Dakota district court awarded Trisa primary residential responsibility for L.R.K. and set Brett's child support at $5,000 per month, including an upward deviation of $1,500.Brett Kingstone appealed, arguing the district court erred in several aspects, including reliance on expert testimony, calculation of his net income, the upward deviation of child support, and refusal to amend the judgment. The district court had denied Brett's motion to amend the judgment but clarified the exchange location for L.R.K. would be at the child's home unless mutually agreed otherwise.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the expert witness to determine Brett's income, including income from irrevocable trusts and recurring capital gains. However, the Supreme Court found the district court's findings insufficient to support the upward deviation in child support under the guidelines and remanded for additional findings and redetermination. The Supreme Court also directed the district court to reconsider the amount of the life insurance policy based on the redetermined child support obligation. The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the exchange provisions for L.R.K. and the requirement for Brett to maintain a life insurance policy for the child. View "Kingstone v. Kingstone" 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

Jared Peterka, a neighbor and tenant of John and Irene Janda, assumed the lease of their farmland in 2012. The lease was renewed every three years, and in 2019, a right of first refusal for Peterka to purchase the land was added. In October 2018, the Jandas established a living trust and conveyed the property into it, with their daughters as residuary beneficiaries. In June 2021, the Jandas and Peterka executed an option to purchase the property. Shortly after, guardianship proceedings were initiated, and the Jandas were found incapacitated. The guardians rescinded the option to purchase.Peterka filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to validate the option to purchase. The Defendants counterclaimed, arguing the option was the result of undue influence and that the Jandas lacked capacity. After a four-day bench trial, the District Court of Traill County found the option to purchase was facially valid and not a product of undue influence. However, it ruled the option was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas' lack of capacity and dismissed Peterka’s complaint.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Peterka argued the district court erred in its findings on capacity. The Supreme Court clarified that the capacity to enter into a contract and the capacity under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 are distinct. The court found the district court did not misstate the law and its findings were supported by evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the option to purchase was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas being of unsound mind but not entirely without understanding. View "Peterka v. Janda" on Justia Law