Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jeffrey Edison appealed an amended divorce judgment that awarded primary residential responsibility of his two children to Signe Edison. He argued that the district court was biased and erred in calculating his income and finding him underemployed for child support purposes. The case had previously been remanded by the North Dakota Supreme Court due to findings of gender bias and errors in income calculation.The district court, on remand, held a status conference and received stipulated evidence, including wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The court then issued orders reaffirming the award of primary residential responsibility to Signe Edison and finding Jeffrey Edison underemployed. Jeffrey Edison appealed again, claiming the district court maintained its bias and failed to follow the Supreme Court's instructions.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no evidence of judicial bias or prejudgment by the district court. The court noted that adverse rulings alone do not indicate bias and that the district court had eliminated the improper findings related to breastfeeding. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of primary residential responsibility to Signe Edison.Regarding the income calculation, the Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in subtracting self-employment losses from Jeffrey Edison's gross income and failing to include refundable tax credits. However, these errors were deemed harmless as they did not affect the outcome. The court concluded that Jeffrey Edison was underemployed regardless of the errors in income calculation and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Edison v. Edison" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Sharon Mitzel, Alan Mitzel, and Eric Mitzel, filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Vogel Law Firm and Jerilynn Brantner Adams, alleging negligence in a divorce action involving the disposition of land known as Section 19. Fred and Sharon Mitzel, who were married and had two sons, formed a family limited partnership and conveyed their farm, including Section 19, to it. During their divorce, they agreed that Section 19 would go to Fred, subject to deeding it to their sons upon his death. However, a subsequent quiet title action determined that the family partnership owned Section 19, nullifying the divorce judgment's property distribution.The District Court of Cass County granted partial summary judgment dismissing Alan and Eric Mitzel’s claims, ruling they lacked standing as non-clients to sue for legal malpractice. The court also granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing Sharon Mitzel’s claims, concluding she presented no evidence that she gave up any marital property to secure the agreement for Section 19 to be deeded to her sons upon Fred’s death. Sharon Mitzel’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs incurred due to Vogel’s alleged malpractice was also dismissed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Alan and Eric Mitzel’s claims, agreeing they lacked standing. The court also upheld the measure of damages used by the lower court, which was based on what Sharon Mitzel gave up to secure Section 19 for her sons. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in determining Sharon Mitzel presented no evidence of incurring attorney’s fees and costs due to Vogel’s alleged malpractice. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Mitzel v. Vogel Law Firm" on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Heather Zins share a child, A.J.O., born in 2004. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Rath was ordered to pay child support. A.J.O. turned 18 in November 2022, ending Rath's ongoing support obligation, but he had accrued arrears. Rath was served with an order to show cause for civil contempt due to non-payment. After an evidentiary hearing, a judicial referee found Rath in contempt and ordered him to make monthly payments towards his arrears, with a suspended 20-day jail sentence contingent on a future hearing.Rath sought review by the District Court of Burleigh County, which adopted the judicial referee's findings. Rath appealed, arguing violations of his right to counsel, errors in child support calculations, and that the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits the State's ability to collect more than fifty percent of his income. He also claimed the defense of laches and third-party standing should prevent enforcement of his obligations.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case under a clearly erroneous standard. The court held that Rath's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the contempt hearing did not result in immediate incarceration, and procedural safeguards were followed. The court also found that Rath's child support obligation continued despite temporary custody by the division of juvenile services and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support arrearages. Additionally, the court ruled that the State and Zins have standing to collect arrears even after the child reached the age of majority, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act does not limit the State's collection efforts in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Burleigh County Social Service Board v. Rath" on Justia Law

Jason Anderson and Olivia Foss, who share a child but were never married, were involved in a legal dispute over modifications to their parenting plan. Foss sought sole decision-making responsibility, required Anderson to take their child to extracurricular activities during his parenting time, and sought reimbursement for health insurance premiums. Anderson countered with a motion to modify child support. The district court modified the parenting plan and child support obligations after a two-day evidentiary hearing.The district court set the commencement date for the modified child support to September 2023, rather than September 2022, without providing an explanation. Anderson appealed, arguing the date should be from when he filed the motion. The court also calculated Foss’s child support obligation based on a partial year’s income and a 32-hour work week without sufficient findings to support these calculations. Additionally, the court ordered Anderson to reimburse Foss for out-of-pocket medical expenses but did not explain how it arrived at the reimbursement amount.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s requirement for Anderson to take the child to extracurricular activities during his parenting time, clarifying that this did not modify his parenting time. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not provide sufficient findings to support the commencement date for the modified child support, the calculation of Foss’s income, and the reimbursement amount for medical expenses. The court also required further explanation for removing all day-to-day decision-making from Anderson.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed parts of the district court’s decision, reversed others, and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to provide additional findings within 30 days. View "Anderson v. Foss" on Justia Law

Lisa Schoenberg and Joshua Schoenberg, parents of two minor children, divorced in 2017 and agreed to share joint and equal residential responsibility. In November 2023, Lisa moved to modify this arrangement, seeking primary residential responsibility. She supported her motion with declarations and exhibits, including a declaration from an attorney who interviewed the children. Joshua opposed the motion, arguing Lisa failed to establish a prima facie case and objected to the attorney’s declaration and letter as hearsay.The District Court of Cass County struck the attorney’s declaration and letter, concluding they contained hearsay and did not meet the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The court also denied Lisa’s motion to modify residential responsibility, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case. Lisa’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The court held that the attorney’s declaration and letter were correctly excluded as they were not more probative than affidavits or declarations from the children themselves. The court also found that Lisa failed to establish a prima facie case for modification. Although she demonstrated material changes in circumstances, such as the children’s counseling and Joshua’s significant other moving in, she did not show these changes adversely affected the children or led to a general decline in their condition. Consequently, the court concluded that Lisa did not meet the necessary legal standard to warrant an evidentiary hearing for modifying residential responsibility. View "Schoenberg v. Schoenberg" on Justia Law

Keith and Latasha Warner were married in 2018 and have one child. In May 2022, Keith filed for divorce and requested primary residential responsibility. The parties initially agreed to an interim order granting equal residential responsibility. After mediation in August 2022, a summary agreement was prepared but not signed by either party. Keith served multiple documents to Latasha at an incorrect address, causing her to miss a scheduling conference and not receive a notice of trial. Despite this, the court mailed a scheduling order to her correct address, setting a trial date for June 5, 2023.At trial, Latasha requested a continuance to retain counsel, which the court denied. The court awarded primary residential responsibility to Keith. Latasha did not appeal the judgment but later moved for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, arguing that Keith's misrepresentation about the mediation agreement prevented her from fairly preparing her case. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied her motion.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of Latasha’s motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion. The court found that the mediation agreement was not binding as it was not signed or approved by the court. The court also found that Keith’s counsel’s statement during trial was inaccurate but did not prevent Latasha from fairly preparing her case. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Latasha’s motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) and affirmed the decision. View "Warner v. Warner" on Justia Law

Philip Ritter appealed a divorce judgment, challenging the district court's decisions on the valuation and distribution of the marital estate, spousal support, and child support obligations. Philip and Megan Ritter were married in 2008 and have three minor children. Megan was the primary income earner until 2014, after which Philip's income fluctuated significantly. Megan filed for divorce in July 2022, and the trial was held in June 2023. The district court awarded Megan primary residential responsibility for the children, spousal support of $2,000 per month, and child support of $4,023 per month.The district court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, valued the marital home at $328,540, incorporating both parties' valuation methods and the cost of a kitchen remodel. The court allocated the Bank of America Platinum Plus Credit Card debt to Philip, finding he failed to account for part of the debt. The court also included an indemnity clause for joint debts, deciding not to require refinancing of the marital home mortgage due to Megan's inability to refinance.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no clear error in the district court's valuation and distribution of the marital estate. The court affirmed the spousal support award, noting the significant disparity in the parties' incomes and Megan's career sacrifices. The court also upheld the child support calculation, which averaged Philip's fluctuating income over three years, resulting in a monthly obligation of $4,023 for three children.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the findings on property valuation, spousal support, and child support were not clearly erroneous and were supported by the evidence. View "Ritter v. Ritter" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Amber Elizabeth McCay and David William McCay, who were married in 2016 and divorced in 2018. They have one minor child, for whom David was initially awarded primary residential responsibility. In 2019, Amber filed a motion for an ex parte interim order, alleging that David had a history of alcohol abuse and had been charged with child neglect. The court denied her motion, stating that David was "innocent until proven guilty." Later, David entered an Alford plea to a charge of reckless endangerment. In 2023, Amber moved to modify primary residential responsibility and requested to relocate the child from North Dakota to Nevada. The district court granted her motion, awarding her primary residential responsibility and permission to relocate the child to Nevada.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, found that Amber had established a prima facie case justifying modification and ordered an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing, the court granted Amber's motion, awarding her primary residential responsibility and permission to relocate the child to Nevada. The court entered an amended judgment and parenting plan.David appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, challenging the court's findings on a material change in circumstances, best interest factors, the findings supporting relocation, and the findings related to the new parenting schedule. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the findings supporting the material change in circumstances, best interest factors, relocation, and the modified parenting schedule were not clearly erroneous. The court found that David's conduct constituted a significant change of circumstances that required a change in custody. The court also found that the changes in circumstances adversely affected the child, requiring a change in custody to foster the child's best interests. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's findings regarding the best interest factors and that the court's findings on the Stout-Hawkinson factors, which consider the potential negative impact of relocation on the child, were not clearly erroneous. The court denied Amber's request for attorney’s fees for defending against the appeal, concluding that David's appeal was neither flagrantly groundless nor devoid of merit. View "McCay v. McCay" on Justia Law

The case involves Mariya Stephens and Kevin Lee, who were married in 2017 and have a child together. After their divorce in 2020, Stephens was granted primary residential responsibility of their child, with Lee receiving parenting time. The divorce judgment stated that if Stephens had a permanent change of duty station, the child would relocate with her. In 2021, Stephens married Charles Stephens and they had two children together. In 2022, the Stephens family contracted to build a home in Virginia and informed Lee of their plans to relocate. Stephens believed she had Lee's consent to relocate either under the divorce judgment or his text messages and emails. In April 2023, Stephens filed a motion for relocation and relocated before the district court could act on the motion.Lee objected to Stephens's relocation and requested the district court to deny her motion to relocate to Virginia. He also moved to amend the divorce judgment to give him primary residential responsibility for their child and filed a motion for contempt due to Stephens's alleged violations of the judgment. In May 2023, the district court required the Stephens family to return to North Dakota with their child. In October 2023, the district court denied Stephens's motion to relocate, awarded Lee primary residential responsibility, and granted his motion to amend the judgment.In the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Stephens argued that the district court erred in denying her motion to relocate. She claimed that she did not need Lee's consent due to language in the divorce judgment and, alternatively, that Lee consented to the relocation through text messages and emails. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the divorce judgment did not provide Stephens with Lee's consent for her to move their child out of state, and did not err by denying her motion and by granting Lee's motion to change primary residential responsibility. View "Stephens v. Lee" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over primary residential responsibility for two minor children between Casey Kubal and Kari Anderson. The couple lived together in North Dakota, but Anderson moved to South Dakota with the children in March 2022. In April 2022, Anderson initiated litigation in South Dakota to establish primary residential responsibility. In August 2023, Kubal served Anderson with a summons and complaint in North Dakota, which were filed with the district court in October 2023. Anderson moved to dismiss the case, arguing that North Dakota was an inconvenient forum as she had already commenced litigation in South Dakota and the children continued to reside there.The District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, dismissed the case, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because North Dakota was not the children's home state when Kubal commenced the case. The court also ruled that even if it had jurisdiction, North Dakota would be an inconvenient forum. The court made its decision based on the pleadings and motion papers, noting that the parties failed to provide information regarding the South Dakota proceeding.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case. The Supreme Court found that the record was inadequate to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under the UCCJEA. The court noted that the district court did not address the three other grounds for jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that the nature of the rulings in South Dakota and the status of those proceedings were necessary to determine whether the district court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that granting Anderson's motion to dismiss without understanding what has occurred in the South Dakota proceeding was contrary to the purpose of the UCCJEA. View "Kubal v. Anderson" on Justia Law