Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Aaron Taylor appealed the district court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Third Amended Judgment modifying his parenting time, limiting his decisionmaking authority, and finding him in contempt. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not clearly err in denying Taylor’s motion to modify or in granting Leah Taylor’s countermotion. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Taylor v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Mary Orwig appealed a district court order finding her in contempt and imposing remedial sanctions. She challenged whether the parties’ divorce judgment was an order from which non-compliance could result in a finding of contempt, the evidence supporting a finding of contempt, and the sanction as an improper punitive sanction. Steven Orwig cross-appealed the court’s Order Following Remand awarding Mary her attorney’s fees in the divorce. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Orwig v. Orwig" on Justia Law

Viviana Lovett appealed an order denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility for the children she had with Antonio Lovett. Viviana argued the district court erred by finding she failed to establish a prima facie case for modification because the divorce judgment stated the parties would revisit the parenting plan if either parent intends to move and Antonio moved to relocate the children. The North Dakota Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Viviana's argument because it concluded the issue on appeal was now moot. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. View "Lovett v. Lovett, et al." on Justia Law

This case involved three appeals after two limited remands by the North Dakota Supreme Court for additional proceedings at the district court. Kevin Johnson appealed several district court orders, a second amended judgment, and a third amended judgment. All proceedings arose from Johnson's divorce from Julie Lessard. The Supreme Court concluded Johnson’s issue, contending the district court had granted a divorce only to Lessard and thereby exceeded its authority, was frivolous and awarded Lessard $750 in attorney’s fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38. The Court further concluded the district court did not err in holding Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case requiring an evidentiary hearing to modify residential responsibility, the court did not err in granting Lessard’s motions for a protective order and for sanctions, and its decision allowing Lessard to relocate out of state with the minor children was not clearly erroneous. View "Lessard v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Karley Anderson appealed an order denying her motion to modify residential responsibility, and appealed a contempt order awarding attorney’s fees to Seth Pedie. Anderson argued the district court erred by concluding she failed to establish a prima facie case for modification entitling her to an evidentiary hearing, and awarding attorney’s fees in excess of the amount requested. Pedie requested sanctions against Anderson for violating the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Anderson’s motion to modify residential responsibility and the contempt order awarding attorney’s fees, and denied sanctions on appeal. View "Anderson v. Pedie, et al." on Justia Law

Michael Pomarleau appealed a divorce judgment and amended divorce judgment. On appeal, Michael challenged the calculation of Tanya Pomarleau’s income for child support obligations, the allocation of child tax credits, allowing an off-set to Tanya's equity payment, and the valuation of various items of property. Tanya cross-appealed, arguing the district court erred in failing to make an adjustment to the net marital estate for expenses incurred by the parties during their separation and in calculating the royalty payments received by the parties during the separation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, concluding the district court did not err in distribution, accounting, and valuation of the net marital estate, or in its allocation of the child tax credits. The Court reversed in part, concluding Michael's income was overstated and Tanya's income was understated, and reversed and remanded for recalculation of the parties’ income for child support purposes. View "Pomarleau v. Pomarleau, et al." on Justia Law

Donna Wald petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and issue a writ of supervision directing the district court to vacate an order denying her demand for a change of judge and to grant the demand. Donna and Gerard Wald divorced in 2019. The Honorable Daniel Narum was the presiding judge in the divorce action. Donna was awarded hay bales and other assets in the property distribution. After entry of the divorce judgment, Donna moved for contempt or in the alternative for redistribution of property, claiming she was unable to retrieve the hay bales awarded to her, and Gerard refused to turn the bales over. The district court denied her motion. Donna appealed, and the property distribution and denial of the post-judgment motion were affirmed on appeal. In 2021, Donna sued Gerard for unjust enrichment and tortious conversion, alleging the hay bales awarded to her in the divorce judgment were worth $242,216; she had not received any of the hay bales; Gerard kept the bales for his own use or sold them for his own gain; and she was deprived of the value, use, and benefit of the bales. She requested the district court to award her $242,000 in damages. Judge Narum was assigned to the case, and Donna filed a demand for a change of judge. Donna argued she complied with the statutory requirements for a change of judge and the court erred by denying her request. The North Dakota Supreme Court denied Donna's petition, concluding the district court did not err when it denied the demand for a change of judge. View "Wald v. Hovey, et al." on Justia Law

Shane Lance Yates and Amy Jo Yates (“Petitioners”) appealed district court orders denying their petitions for name changes and requests for reconsideration. They argued the district court erred in concluding their current names and the names requested were the same names. Petitioners sought to change their respective names from “SHANE LANCE YATES” (in all uppercase letters) to “Shane Lance Yates” and “AMY JO YATES” (in all uppercase letters) to “Amy Jo Yates.” They requested the changes to “terminate the guardian-ward relationship, and to distinguish from all other aliases, correct any mistakes, errors or identity confusion that exists in relation to the ALL CAPS STATE CREATED NAME.” The district court denied the petitions under res judicata because the Petitioners had previously filed identical name change petitions, which had been denied by the court, and they did not seek to change from one name to another and the requested change would not affect any action or legal proceeding or other right, title, or interest, as was the stated purpose. The Petitioners argue the district court erred in concluding their current names and the names requested were the same names. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding Petitioners offered no authority or reasoned argument that there was any legal significance to the capitalization of their names. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitions. View "Matter of Shane Lance Yates" on Justia Law

Dean Gerving appealed a second amended judgment modifying his child support obligation. Gerving argued the district court erred in calculating his net income and erred by denying his request for a downward deviation in his child support obligation based on his payment of the child’s private school tuition. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Gerving’s request for a downward deviation, but concluded the court erred in calculating Gerving’s net income. Therefore, that judgment was reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to properly calculate Gerving’s net income and child support obligation. View "Gerving v. Gerving, et al." on Justia Law

S.J.H. appealed a district court order granting the State’s motion for sanctions against him for failure to obey a court order for genetic testing and from a default judgment ordering him to pay child support. The North Dakota Child Support Division (“State”) commenced a civil action against S.J.H. to establish paternity for a minor child. S.J.H. retained counsel. In S.J.H.’s answer and counterclaim, he included a request for genetic testing to be conducted. At a hearing nearly four months later, he withdrew his request for testing. The district court then entered an order requiring S.J.H. to submit to genetic testing. After two months went by with no testing having been conducted, the district court requested a status update from the parties. S.J.H.’s counsel responded that S.J.H. had not been tested, and counsel moved to withdraw, stating that his attorney-client relationship with S.J.H. had “deteriorated to a degree that further representation is not possible” after their discussions about the proceedings “resulted in an impasse.” The State subsequently scheduled an appointment for genetic testing for March 25, 2021, in S.J.H.’s state of residence. On March 10, the State sent a letter to S.J.H.’s counsel with the information regarding the upcoming appointment. This letter was sent to counsel only and not directly to S.J.H. On March 31, the court granted S.J.H.’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. On April 30, the district court again asked the State and S.J.H. for a status update. Because S.J.H. failed to attend his March 25 appointment, the State requested sanctions against him, including striking his answer and rendering default judgment against him. S.J.H. stated he was unaware of the March 25 appointment, and learned of such appointment only upon being served the State’s motion for default judgment two months later. Nevertheless, the court granted the State's motion for sanctions. S.J.H. argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in granting sanctions against him because his former attorney failed to notify him of the scheduled genetic testing appointment, thus he did not disobey the court order to submit to genetic testing. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the sanctions order. View "North Dakota v. S.J.H., et al." on Justia Law