Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between Keisha Kemmet and Lindell Kemmet, who were married in September 2016 and separated in June 2021. The main issues in the case revolve around the distribution of marital property following their divorce. Keisha Kemmet argues that the district court's distribution of marital property was not equitable, the court's valuation of land was clearly erroneous, and the court's computations contain errors. Lindell Kemmet cross-appeals, arguing that the court's valuations of his remainder interest in his family's homestead, personal property items, and his dental practice were clearly erroneous. He also argues that the distribution of marital property is not equitable, the provision regarding health insurance is ambiguous, and the court abused its discretion by failing to allow for cross-examination of Keisha Kemmet’s expert witness.The district court had valued the parties' property and debts and made an equitable distribution. Both parties presented testimony regarding the valuation of the land and the dental practice. The district court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment and judgment. Both parties appealed.The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court's valuation of the Kidder County property and the dental practice was not clearly erroneous. The court's valuations of these items were within the range of the evidence presented. However, the court's execution of the distribution created confusion and required clarification. The Supreme Court remanded the issue for proper accounting of the distribution of the marital estate. The court also found that the district court's finding of an equitable distribution of 40% to Keisha Kemmet in a short-term marriage was not clearly erroneous. The court's findings and distributions were supported by the record. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in all other respects, except for the court's findings regarding the valuation and distribution of the Kidder County property, which must be clarified and its distributions reconsidered. View "Kemmet v. Kemmet" on Justia Law

The case involves Laura Cote and Adam Cote, who were divorced in November 2022. The divorce agreement prohibited exposing their children to felons and known sex offenders. However, Laura Cote began dating Steven Alexander, a convicted sex offender, in August 2022. In April 2023, Adam Cote filed a motion to modify residential responsibility and sought a contempt sanction against Laura Cote for violating the terms of the judgment by allowing Alexander to be around the children. He also filed a motion to compel discovery seeking communications between Laura Cote and Alexander and Laura Cote’s bank statements.The District Court of Ward County found Laura Cote in contempt of court for allowing and encouraging contact between the children and Alexander. However, the court denied Adam Cote’s motion for primary residential responsibility, deeming it an "extreme remedy." Instead, the court ordered that the children have no contact with Alexander and warned Laura Cote of significant consequences for non-compliance. The court also denied Adam Cote’s motion to compel discovery.In the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Adam Cote appealed the district court's orders denying his motion to modify residential responsibility and motion to compel discovery. Laura Cote cross-appealed the order finding her in contempt of court. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in part, agreeing that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Adam Cote’s motion to compel discovery or in finding Laura Cote in contempt of court. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court failed to make necessary findings regarding the best interest factors for the Supreme Court to provide a meaningful review of the district court’s denial of a modification of primary residential responsibility. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case with instructions to provide findings on the best interests of the children. View "Cote v. Cote" on Justia Law

In this case, J.C.P., the father of A.P., appealed a juvenile court's decision to terminate his parental rights. The child had been placed in protective custody due to his negligence and was adjudicated in need of protection. Both parents were in default, and the court had extended protective custody for an additional nine months. The mother did not appear at any of the hearings, but J.C.P. did, except for the final status conference. At this conference, the State moved for default against J.C.P., and the court agreed, terminating both parents' rights.J.C.P. argued that the court had abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of the affidavit underlying the petition without receiving testimony or other evidence in support of termination. He claimed that the court's findings were erroneous as they were not supported by evidence in the record. The Supreme Court of North Dakota agreed, finding that the juvenile court had abused its discretion by relying on an affidavit that the State never offered and the court never received into evidence.The court also pointed out that the juvenile court should not have accepted the qualified expert witness's affidavit instead of testimony, as the parties had not stipulated to this. The Court concluded that the juvenile court's findings on termination were clearly erroneous because they were not supported by evidence in the record. As a result, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the juvenile court order terminating parental rights and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Interest of A.P." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota was tasked with reviewing a lower court's decision to grant a mother's request to relocate her children to Minnesota after she remarried. The father contested the relocation, claiming that the lower court misapplied certain factors when making its decision and placed too much emphasis on the mother's new marriage.In the original divorce settlement, the mother received primary residential responsibility, and the father was granted weekly parenting time. However, after the mother remarried and sought to move to Minnesota to live with her new husband, she requested permission from the court to relocate the children. The father opposed the move.The lower court ruled in favor of the mother, finding that the move was in the best interests of the children. The court considered the Stout-Hawkinson factors, which include the prospective advantages of the move, the integrity of the custodial parent's motive for relocation, the integrity of the noncustodial parent's motives for opposing the move, and the potential negative impact on the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child. The court found that the first two factors favored the mother, and that while the fourth factor was not in her favor, it did not outweigh the strength of the other factors.On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the lower court had not erred in its application of the Stout-Hawkinson factors, and that the evidence supported the lower court's findings. The court also rejected the father's claim that the lower court had created a "super factor" by placing too much emphasis on the mother's new marriage, noting that the lower court had considered all relevant factors in making its decision. View "Nelson v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Alexander Williams, the appellant, appealed the dismissal of his petition for nonparent visitation rights to I.H.L., a child from his ex-wife's previous relationship. Williams had been a consistent caretaker of I.H.L. since 2014 and had maintained a close relationship with the child, even after his divorce from the child's mother, Stefaney Vraa. However, following a disagreement with Vraa, Williams was denied visitation rights. The district court dismissed Williams’ petition on the grounds that he had failed to establish a prima facie case for nonparent visitation, specifically that he did not satisfy the requirements of a consistent caretaker.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded the decision, concluding that Williams had indeed established a prima facie case for nonparent visitation, warranting an evidentiary hearing. The court decided that Williams had shown he was a consistent caretaker for I.H.L., having lived with and cared for the child for more than 12 months, made day-to-day decisions for the child, and established a bonded and dependent relationship with the child. The court also found that Williams had shown a substantial relationship with the child, and that denying him visitation would result in harm to the child, given the evidence of increased anxiety and distress in the child following the denial of visitation. View "Williams v. Vraa" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota dealt with a dispute between divorced parents, Nickolette Keller and Michael Keller, over tax exemptions for their children. The divorce judgement had allocated the right to claim the oldest child to Michael Keller and the younger child to Nickolette Keller. In 2023, Michael Keller attempted to claim his eldest child on his taxes, but received a letter from the child, facilitated by Nickolette Keller, stating the child would be filing his own taxes. Consequently, Michael Keller filed a motion for contempt against Nickolette Keller.The district court found Nickolette Keller in contempt for willful and inexcusable intent to violate the court order and awarded Michael Keller attorney’s fees up to when Nickolette Keller provided the necessary tax form. The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Nickolette Keller's refusal to comply with the divorce judgement and her facilitation of the child's letter constituted contempt.Michael Keller cross-appealed, arguing the district court erred in not awarding him the full amount of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court denied his claim, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding Michael Keller attorney’s fees incurred after Nickolette Keller provided him the IRS form. Michael Keller also unsuccessfully requested attorney’s fees on appeal, which the Supreme Court denied due to inadequate briefing and argument. View "Keller v. Keller" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Derrick Sherwood appealed a district court order denying his motion to vacate a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. The court held a hearing and entered a DVPO restraining Derrick Sherwood from having contact with Valerie Sherwood, his ex-wife, and their two minor children. The order also required Derrick Sherwood to surrender his firearms to law enforcement. Later, the court amended the DVPO to remove the restriction on Derrick Sherwood’s possession of firearms. Derrick Sherwood later moved to vacate the DVPO altogether.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Derrick Sherwood’s request to treat Valerie Sherwood as a hostile witness or in denying Derrick Sherwood’s motion to vacate the DVPO. The court also held that the district court did not err in awarding Valerie Sherwood attorney’s fees.Furthermore, the court held that Derrick Sherwood did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02(4)(g), which allows a DVPO to require, under certain circumstances, that the respondent surrender any firearm or other specified dangerous weapon. As the DVPO was amended to allow Derrick Sherwood to possess firearms, he did not have a justiciable controversy regarding the constitutionality of this statute.The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Sherwood v. Sherwood" on Justia Law

In this divorce case between Stacey Jean Dimmler and Dustin Scott Dimmler, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed several issues. The couple had two children and disputed matters of property division, child support, and primary residential responsibility. Both parties appealed the decision of the District Court. Dustin argued that the court erred in valuing and distributing the marital estate, in determining primary residential responsibility, in calculating child support, and by refusing to remove a parenting investigator. Stacey cross-appealed, arguing that the court erred by not making child support retroactive to the date of the interim order, not awarding her attorney’s fees, and not ordering Dustin to repay her the cost of her parental capacity evaluation.The supreme court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It affirmed the district court's valuation of the Florida property and the parties’ personal property, its decision on primary residential responsibility, its calculation of Dustin's child support payments, its refusal to retroactively award child support to Stacey, and its denial of attorney’s fees or reimbursement of Stacey's fees for a parental capacity evaluation. However, the court found error in the district court's calculation of the farmland's value. The supreme court held that the district court should have included the debt from the life estate in calculating the value of Dustin's remainder interest in the farmland. It remanded the case for further proceedings to properly evaluate the farmland’s value and to equitably divide the marital estate. View "Dimmler v. Dimmler" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded a juvenile court order that terminated the parental rights of T.W. to her children, J.C. and M.W. The children had been placed in foster care by the Ward County Human Services Zone due to child abuse by T.W. and A.W., and T.W. was sentenced to four years in custody after pleading guilty to three counts of child abuse. The State later filed a petition for termination of T.W.'s parental rights.The Supreme Court found that the juvenile court had abused its discretion when it took judicial notice of and considered evidence beyond the evidentiary record. The court also found that the juvenile court had made clearly erroneous findings, including incorrectly stating that the children had been in foster care for 1123 nights when they had actually been there for 877 nights. Although there was sufficient evidence to support the termination of T.W.'s parental rights, the court was unable to discern whether the juvenile court had relied on inadmissible evidence in its decision.As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions for the juvenile court to issue an order based only on the evidence received at trial. The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and requested that the juvenile court issue its new order within 20 days. View "Interest of J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed a district court decision denying Chad Hanson's petition to be recognized as the heir of the late Arlen Lindberg. Lindberg died intestate, and Hanson filed a petition alleging that he was Lindberg's biological son, substantiating his claim with an affidavit from his mother and DNA testing results showing a 99.7% chance of relation to Lindberg's biological brother. The Lindberg family opposed the petition, arguing that Lindberg's parental rights were terminated when Hanson was adopted by his stepfather. The district court ruled in favor of the Lindberg family, interpreting North Dakota's Uniform Probate Code and Uniform Parentage Act to require that a paternity action commence within two years of birth, which was not the case for Hanson. However, the Supreme Court of North Dakota disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the district court had applied the law incorrectly. The Supreme Court ruled that the Uniform Probate Code allows for establishing a "genetic father" through genetic testing or the Uniform Parentage Act, and that the act of adoption does not equate to an adjudication of paternity. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. View "Estate of Lindberg" on Justia Law