Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Donna Wald appealed an amended divorce judgment valuing and distributing hers and Gerard Wald’s marital property. She also appealed a postjudgment order denying her motion for contempt or redistribution of property. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not clearly err in valuing and distributing the parties’ marital property. View "Wald v. Wald" on Justia Law

Aimee Norby and Robert Hinesley were the parents of a child born in 2012. In 2014, Norby filed and served a complaint seeking primary residential responsibility over the child. Norby was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Hinesley was awarded parenting time. In March 2019, Norby married Lyle Anderson. Anderson worked as a diesel mechanic in the Williston, North Dakota, area. Anderson grew up in Smithville, Missouri, and owned a home there. Smithville was a town of approximately 10,000 people about twenty minutes north of Kansas City, Missouri. Norby and Anderson resided in Williston with the Norby’s and Hinesley’s child. Hinesley also lived in Williston. Norby filed a motion to relocate to Smithville with the child. Hinesley opposed Norby’s motion and filed a motion to change primary residential responsibility or modify parenting time. The district court denied Norby’s motion to relocate. On appeal, Norby argued the district court erred in denying her motion, that the district court’s findings under the two Stout-Hawkinson factors were clearly erroneous. She argued the evidence demonstrated an out of state move had prospective advantages that would improve her and the child’s quality of life. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding on factor one. Norby also argued the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous because there was no indication the move was premised upon an effort to limit Hinesley’s parenting time. The Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding on factor two. The Court thus affirmed denial fo Norby's motion to relocate. View "Norby v. Hinesley, et al." on Justia Law

Kathleen and Thomas Varty divorced in 2011. In August 2017, Thomas moved to terminate spousal support to Kathleen. The district court reduced his obligation and Kathleen appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Kathleen moved under Rule 60(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from judgment, alleging that during the marriage Thomas obtained shares in a “phantom” stock plan from a former employer. She claimed she was entitled to half of the $72,400 sale proceeds received by Thomas in February 2016. Thomas opposed the motion, arguing the stock had no value on the date of the divorce and did not become vested until after the divorce. After a hearing, the district court granted Kathleen relief from judgment and awarded her half of the net proceeds Thomas received. On appeal, Thomas argued the district court abused its discretion when considering Kathleen's untimely filed reply brief, when it granted Kathleen's untimely request for oral arguments, and when it found it was unconscionable for Thomas to exclusively enjoy the benefits from the stock accrued during the marriage. Further, he claimed it was clearly erroneous for the court to order Thomas to pay Kathleen one-half of the net proceeds from the stock, and the court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it did not set aside the entire 2011 judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that the district court concluded the agreement was free from fraud and that it would be unconscionable not to give Kathleen half of the stock. The Supreme Court found the district court did not explain the terms of the marital termination agreement and how not receiving 50% of the stock made the stipulation and resulting judgment as a whole so one-sided and created such hardship that it was unconscionable. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by misinterpreting or misapplying the law; judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Varty v. Varty" on Justia Law

Nathanael Brown appealed the issuance of a domestic violence protection order which enjoined him from having contact with Flavia Brown and restricted his right to possess firearms. In late September 2019, Flavia Brown petitioned the district court for a protection order against Nathanael. The court issued a temporary protection order and an order for hearing procedure which set a hearing for October 9, 2019. The order for hearing procedure stated evidence would be taken by affidavit only and a party seeking to cross-examine an affiant must notify the opposing party at least twenty-four hours before the hearing. On the day before the hearing, Nathanael Brown filed notice of appearance and a request to continue the hearing. On the day of the hearing, he filed notice of cross-examination. At the time scheduled for the hearing, the district court denied Nathanael's requests for continuance and cross-examination because they were untimely under the order for hearing procedure. At the outset of the hearing, Nathanael objected to the district court’s affidavit procedure, arguing that it would deny him due process and a “full hearing” under N.D.C.C. 14-07.1-02. The district court denied Nathanael permission to cross-examine Flavia about her affidavit or to present any of his own evidence. The court accepted Flavia's affidavit and granted the domestic violence protection order preventing Nathanael from having contact with Flavia Brown for two years. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Nathanael was denied a full hearing under N.D.C.C. 14-07.1-02(4), the protection order was reversed and the matter remanded for a full hearing. View "Brown v. Brown" on Justia Law

Alicia Wisnewski appealed a divorce judgment distributing property, awarding spousal support, declining to award attorney’s fees, determining parenting time, decisionmaking responsibility, and child support. Alicia argued the district court’s findings on domestic violence were insufficient and the finding that the statutory domestic violence presumption was rebutted was clearly erroneous. She also argued the court erred in determining joint decisionmaking responsibility, distributing property, allocating debts, failing to award attorney’s fees, and in determining child support and spousal support. After review of the facts specific to this case, the North Dakota Supreme Court had difficulty finding support in the record for some of the trial court's decisions with respect to all issues Alicia raised. The Court affirmed with respect to the spousal support decision, but remanded for supplemental findings for generally all other issues. View "Wisnewski v. Wisnewski" on Justia Law

Janet Gerving appealed a judgment granting Ben Gerving a divorce and distributing their marital property. Janet argued the district court’s property distribution was clearly erroneous because it was not equitable and the court did not adequately explain the substantial disparity. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court was attempting to keep the farming operation viable and respect the parties’ desire to keep the real property available for the parties’ children, "but there are other ways it can be accomplished with an equitable distribution and without limiting the distribution to Janet Gerving based on what Ben Gerving can afford to pay." The Court was left with a "definite and firm conviction a mistake was made, and concluded the district court's property distribution was clearly erroneous. The matter was thus remanded for the court to make an equitable property division. The Court affirmed the district in all other respects. View "Gerving v. Gerving" on Justia Law

Erica Sims appealed a judgment granting her a divorce from Larry Sims. She argued the district court’s parenting time decision was clearly erroneous, the court erred in determining the value of certain marital property, the court erred by failing to award her spousal support, and the court erred by ordering her to reimburse Larry for half of the airfare he incurred related to missed parenting time. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s property valuations, parenting time, and spousal support decisions were not clearly erroneous. However, the Court determined the court erred by failing to include all of the parties’ stipulated terms related to the property distribution in the judgment without providing an explanation why the provisions were excluded, the court erred in determining the amounts Larry was required to reimburse Erica pursuant to the interim order, and the court abused its discretion by ordering a remedial contempt sanction without finding Erica in contempt. The matter was thus remanded for further proceedings. View "Sims v. Sims" on Justia Law

Trevor Rustad appealed an amended judgment modifying a previous parenting plan. Mary Baumgartner cross-appealed an order denying her motion to modify parenting time. The parties had two minor children together, L.J.B., born in 2017, and L.B.R., born in 2015. The district court awarded primary residential responsibility to Baumgartner and parenting time to Rustad. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rustad v. Baumgartner" on Justia Law

This was an appeal stemming from a divorce action commenced in 2017. The only issue was division of the parties’ marital property. Included as part of the parties’ marital property was Myron Axtman’s Hess pension. The pension benefits commenced on February 1, 2015, at which time Axtman began receiving $2,891.60 per month. Myron Axtman appealed an amended judgment distributing the parties’ marital property. Axtman argued the district court abused its discretion in amending the judgment, and the court amended judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) without providing proper notice. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined Rule 60(a) was a proper mechanism for the court to amend the judgment to correct the mistake resulting from its oversight and omission, but the court did not provide notice to the parties it was considering amending judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a). However, the court’s error was considered harmless because, after the court amended the judgment, Axtman brought a “Motion to Vacate Order on Motion for Relief from Judgment.” In his motion, Axtman argued the district court erred in amending the judgment under Rule 60(a) because the original judgment’s failure to divide the pension payments received by Axtman during the pendency of the divorce was not a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission, which was the argument he raised on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined Axtman was aware the district court recognized it failed to take into consideration the payments Axtman received during the pendency of the divorce in the original judgment, and that Amy Axtman was attempting to amend the judgment to account for the payments Axtman received during the pendency of the divorce. The court’s error in not providing notice did not require reversal. Thus, the Court affirmed judgment. View "Axtman v. Axtman" on Justia Law

George Voigt appealed a judgment establishing paternity and primary residential responsibility. Voigt and Brenna Nelson were never married, but had one daughter, S.M.V., born in 2013. Voigt filed a complaint to establish paternity and parental responsibility in October 2018. In March 2019, Voigt sought interim relief, requesting equal residential and decision making responsibility. In April 2019, the district court ordered that the parties have joint residential responsibility and joint decision making on an interim basis. At trial, Voigt requested joint and equal residential responsibility and decision making authority. Nelson requested primary residential responsibility and decision making authority as determined by the court. The court awarded Nelson primary residential responsibility and decision making authority for non-emergency healthcare decisions. Voigt received parenting time and joint decision making in other aspects. On appeal, Voigt argued the district court’s award of primary residential responsibility and decision making authority for non-emergency healthcare decisions was clearly erroneous and the court abused its discretion by adopting the recommendations from a biased parenting investigator. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Voigt v. Nelson" on Justia Law