Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Chad Quamme appealed a divorce judgment, arguing the district court erred when it calculated child support and when it awarded Ashley Quamme spousal support. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s child support determination, concluding the court’s finding that Chad was self-employed was not supported by the evidence. The Court also reversed the court’s award of spousal support because it was unable to determine the court’s rationale for deciding Chad had the ability to pay. The case was remanded for the district court to recalculate child support and to reassess whether an award of spousal support was warranted. View "Quamme v. Quamme" on Justia Law

Cliff Boldt appealed a divorce judgment, arguing the district court erred when it awarded Heidi Boldt primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor children. He argued the court’s analysis of the best interest factors was inadequate, and the evidence did not support its decision. Heidi cross appealed, arguing the court erred when it calculated child support. She argued the court improperly allowed Cliff to deduct amounts he paid her for the children’s health insurance premiums from his gross income. Finding no reversible error in either appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Boldt v. Boldt" on Justia Law

Jason and Andrea Alm appealed a district court order denying grandparent visitation, arguing the district court erred in finding they did not meet the statutory requirements for nonparent visitation. The Alms were the parents of Spencer Muchow. Muchow and Mariah Kohler had two children, S.J.M.A. and D.J.M.A. In 2018, the district court awarded Muchow primary residential responsibility of the children. Muchow died in 2019 and the children went into Kohler’s exclusive care. In 2020, the Alms filed a petition for visitation. After a hearing, a judicial referee denied the Alms’ petition. The Alms requested district court review. The district court adopted the referee’s findings, concluding it was not proven that the Alms had a significant emotional bond with their grandchildren, and that denial of visitation would harm their grandchildren. The district court found Kohler was acting in her children’s best interest and could allow the Alms visitation if she so decided. Upon review of the evidence and the district court’s findings, the North Dakota Supreme Court was "not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake was made." Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Muchow v. Kohler, et al." on Justia Law

Richard Anderson and Priscilla Iakel-Garcia married in 2008 and had one child. In November 2019, Iakel-Garcia filed for divorce. In November 2020, a bench trial was held by reliable electronic means. Richard appealed the judgment granting the parties’ divorce, awarding Priscilla Iakel-Garcia primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making of the parties’ minor child, and distributing the parties’ marital estate. Richard argued the district court erred in awarding Priscilla primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making because the court should not have considered his criminal conviction. Further, he argued the court failed to divide the property equitably between the parties. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment awarding Priscilla primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making. However, the Court found the district court failed to determine the total value of the marital estate before dividing the marital property. "The judgment, without any reference to the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, fails to list any value for the parties’ assets. As a result, we are unable to determine whether the court equitably distributed the marital estate because the court did not make sufficient findings to permit appellate review." This portion of the district court judgment was reversed and the matter remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Iakel-Garcia v. Anderson" on Justia Law

L.D., father of A.D., appeals a juvenile court order granting a guardianship for A.D. The father argued the court erred by finding A.D. to be a deprived child and failing to address the best interest factors and make an exceptional circumstances finding. A.D.’s aunt and uncle petitioned the juvenile court for a guardianship under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.1, alleging A.D. was a deprived child. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father had not provided care for or had any contact with A.D. since 2007 or 2008, and did not make any significant attempts to locate A.D. or have A.D. placed in his care. The court found that although the mother testified she attempted to hide A.D. from the father due to “what the father did to her [the mother],” the father has been aware of A.D.’s whereabouts since at least late 2019. In 2019, the father attempted to speak with A.D. on the telephone, but A.D. refused. The court found the father made no further attempt to contact A.D. The court found the father had abandoned A.D. The father claimed the juvenile court did not address the best interest factors under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court was "able to discern how the court’s findings apply to the statutory best interest factors. The court was not required to specifically identify and discuss each best interest factor. The court made sufficient findings to conclude that the guardianship was in the best interest of A.D." Further, the Court found an exceptional circumstances finding was required when both a parent and non-parent are suitable candidates. When the child was deprived by the parents, no finding of exceptional circumstances was required to be made by the court to grant a guardianship. The finding of deprivation eliminates the need for a finding of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, because A.D. was a deprived child, the juvenile court was not required to make a finding of exceptional circumstances in order to grant the guardianship. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the juvenile court's order. View "Interest of A.D." on Justia Law

J.H. appealed a trial court's order and findings of fact denying his petition to remove T.F. as guardian of M.H., appoint himself as guardian, and remove contact restrictions T.F. placed on his contact with M.H. On appeal, J.H. argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to remove T.F. as guardian and refusing to remove restrictions T.F. placed on his contact with M.H, arguing the finding that he was unable to civilly structure his contact with M.H. was clearly erroneous. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering T.F. remain M.H.’s guardian and its findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Guardianship of M.H." on Justia Law

A.S. appealed a juvenile court's judgment and order terminating her parental rights to her child, A.S.F. A.S. was appointed counsel when the State petitioned for involuntary termination of her parental rights. The trial court allowed A.S.’s counsel to withdraw after A.S. expressed dissatisfaction with her counsel. The termination hearing was continued and new counsel was appointed. One day before the rescheduled hearing, A.S.’s second counsel moved to withdraw. The judge heard the motion at the termination hearing. There, counsel stated a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship had occurred. The court granted counsel’s motion on the basis of the treatment A.S. showed to her counsel and the unwillingness of A.S. to work with any attorney the court appointed. The judge found A.S.’s actions to be a voluntary waiver of her right to counsel. Counsel was allowed to leave the courtroom. The hearing proceeded with A.S. without counsel. The juvenile court entered an order terminating parental rights on June 10, 2021. A.S. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court 61 days after the initial June 10 order terminating her parental rights was entered. A.S. argues her right to counsel was violated after the court granted her second attorney’s motion to withdraw, leaving A.S. to represent herself at the termination hearing and without advice regarding the process and deadline for appeal. The Supreme Court determined it lacked jurisdiction even to consider a claim that a party failed to timely appeal as a result of a denial of the party’s right to counsel. "We are without jurisdiction to hear A.S.’s waiver of her right to counsel argument because her appeal was untimely." View "Interest of A.S.F." on Justia Law

Nicole Kunz (formerly, Slappy) appealed a third amended judgment modifying her primary residential responsibility for the parties’ minor child, M.S., and granting Jermece Slappy equal residential responsibility. Kunz argued the district court erred in finding a material change in circumstances, erred in modifying the existing residential responsibility in the absence of a general decline in the child’s condition, and erred in its analysis of the best interest factors. Slappy cross-appealed, arguing the district court improperly calculated his child support obligation. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred in modifying the existing residential responsibility without evidence of a general decline in the condition of the child. Therefore, the third amended judgment was reversed. In light of the Court’s decision with respect to the third amended judgment, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the remaining issues raised by the parties on appeal. View "Slappy v. Slappy" on Justia Law

Tonya Kerzmann appealed a district court’s denial of her request for an evidentiary hearing on her motion for a change in primary residential responsibility. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Kerzmann pled a prima facie case supporting her motion for modification of primary residential responsibility. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kerzmann v. Kerzmann" on Justia Law

J.B. appealed a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her two children. She argued there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the court’s determination under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that continued custody by J.B. was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. Retaining jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3), the North Dakota Supreme Court remanded to the juvenile court for detailed findings under ICWA, allowing for additional testimony from the qualified expert witness if necessary to make the required findings. After receiving additional testimony, the district court made additional findings, denied the petition to terminate J.B.’s parental rights, and ordered the children be removed from J.B.’s custody for nine months. No party requested additional briefing or argument following the order on remand. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court order. View "Interest of K.B." on Justia Law