Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Blaine Konkel appealed an amended judgment entered after the district court denied his request to modify his parenting time with the child he has with Courtney Amb, and clarified the location of the parenting time exchanges. Konkel argued the district court erred by finding a material change in circumstances did not exist, and also by amending the parenting plan without finding a material change in circumstances. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Konkel v. Amb" on Justia Law

Matthew and SummerLee Thomas were married in 2008 and had two children, H.M.T. and C.M.T. In 2018, a divorce was initiated and following trial in February 2019, the district court issued a judgment, granting the parties joint residential responsibility of the children. Matthew appealed the judgment and argued the court erred in applying the best interest factors. Matthew argued factors (a) and (c) were not supported by the evidence. He also argued the court erred in applying factor (j) by not applying a pattern of domestic violence. He additionally argued the court erred by failing to include all of the stipulated parenting plan or make findings that the terms were not in the children’s best interests. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the court’s finding on factors (a) and (c), but remanded with instructions for the court to further specify its reasoning on factor (j) and to include the stipulated parenting plan or make findings that the terms were not in the best interests of the children. After the district court made amended findings and conclusions in accordance with the instructions, Matthew appealed again, arguing there were additional errors in the amended findings and conclusions. The Supreme Court affirmed, as modified, with instructions. View "Thomas v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Chris and Anna Cook were divorced in 2016 under the terms of a stipulated judgment which awarded Anna residential responsibility for their minor children and granted Chris parenting time subject to certain conditions. Chris was also ordered to pay child support. Three months after judgment was entered, Chris was found in contempt for failing to comply with provisions of the divorce judgment and was ordered to pay Anna's attorney fees and costs. During summer 2018, Anna petitioned the juvenile court to terminate Chris' parental rights, but voluntarily dismissed the petition. Continued disagreements between the parties ultimately resulted in competing motions to hold the other in contempt. Chris appealed the denial of his request to hold Anna in contempt of court for violating the parties’ divorce judgment. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cook v. Cook" on Justia Law

Warren Runyan appealed a judgment granting Heather Presswood’s request for divorce while reserving division of the parties’ property and allocation of the parties’ debt. Runyan argued the district court erred in granting the divorce because Presswood failed to file a brief in support of her motion and he was denied due process by the court’s failure to rule on his objection to Presswood’s motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding the judgment was not final and was not appealable. View "Presswood v. Runyan" on Justia Law

James Aldinger appeals from a second amended judgment modifying his child support obligation for the child he has with Marcella Aldinger. In October 2010 the amended judgment was entered, ordering James to pay $427 in child support for the child. On April 17, 2019, the State moved to modify James' child support obligation, requesting an increase to $748 per month. On April 26, 2019, James answered, and filed a second answer on May 1, 2019, moving to dismiss the motion, and contending his employment changed and the State disregarded the change. The distict court modified the support order, calculating the correct child support for James' income was $701 per month. A second amended judgment was entered. James argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the district court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss the State’s motion to modify when it determined that different income calculations were appropriate. He also argued the court did not have jurisdiction to modify the child support obligation because he no longer lived in North Dakota and the court erred as a matter of law by applying the North Dakota child support guidelines. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the second amended judgment. View "Aldinger v. Aldinger" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson appeals from an amended judgment granting Julie Lessard a divorce and from orders denying his motions for a new trial and for contempt. Johnson and Lessard were married in 2006, and had three minor children together. Johnson argued the court’s property division was not equitable and the court did not explain the disparity in the division, and the court did not properly apply the best interest factors in deciding primary residential responsibility for the children. Johnson also moved to amend the judgment and to hold Lessard in contempt. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not act in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner and did not misinterpret or misapply the law. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson’s motion for contempt without holding an evidentiary hearing. The district court judgment was affirmed. View "Lessard v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Matthew and SummerLee Thomas were married in 2008. Matthew and SummerLee have two children, H.M.T., born in 2008, and C.M.T., born in 2009. In May 2018 Matthew initiated a divorce proceeding, citing irreconcilable differences. Following trial in February 2019, the district court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. A judgment was entered accordingly, granting an absolute decree of divorce, distributing assets, and giving SummerLee and Matthew joint residential responsibility of H.M.T. and C.M.T. Matthew appealed the judgment granting the parties joint residential responsibility of the children, arguing the district court erred when applying the best interest factors. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not make findings regarding the portions of a stipulated agreement that were not part of the divorce judgment and order. "The court is not bound to accept the stipulation, but if it does not, it must make findings that the stipulation is not in the best interests of the children. ... [t]he district court’s findings should be sufficiently detailed to allow [the Supreme] Court to understand the basis for its decision.” The matter was remanded with instructions to the district court to make specific findings. View "Thomas v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After falling into arrears on his court-ordered child support obligation, the North Dakota suspended Joshua Rose's drivers license. In November 2018, Rose entered into a child support payment plan with the State which lifted his drivers license suspension. The payment plan required Rose to make a $1,000 down payment and pay $836 per month for his current child support obligation and $167.20 per month for his arrears. Rose stopped paying his child support obligation after December 31, 2018. Following Rose’s failure to comply with the payment plan, the State resuspended his drivers license. Rose requested a hearing in the district court and asked to appear telephonically to contest the license suspension. The court denied the motion on May 17, 2019, reasoning Rose “has failed to show any statutory, or procedural, basis for granting his requests.” The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred, reversed and remanded for a hearing as required by N.D.C.C. 50-09-08.6. View "North Dakota v. Rose" on Justia Law

Paul and Raina Saastad were married in 2006 and had two children together. In April 2017, Raina filed for divorce. The issues of residential and decisionmaking responsibility for the parties’ children were tried to the district court over two days in May 2018. In July 2018, the parties stipulated on the record to an agreement on financial issues. As part of the agreement, the parties agreed to pay their own attorney’s fees. The court granted the parties equal decisionmaking responsibility regarding the children, but granted Raina primary residential responsibility, noting joint residential responsibility would not be in the best interests of the children given the parties’ unwillingness to communicate or cooperate. Paul moved for a new trial, seeking to admit newly discovered evidence. He also moved for relief from judgment, alleging several errors in the district court’s judgment. Raina opposed the motions, and in her response requested attorney’s fees for the additional legal work related to the post-judgment motions. The district court denied the motion for a new trial, granted the motion for relief from judgment in part, and denied Raina's request for attorney’s fees. Paul appealed and Raina cross-appealed the trial court's orders, but finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Saastad v. Saastad" on Justia Law

Becky Jo Krump-Wootton appealed a district court order denying her request to change the school location for the parties’ children, and denying her request to modify the parties’ parenting time. Daniel Krump cross-appealed the denial of his request for modification of primary responsibility. The parties were divorced in 2012. Becky was awarded primary residential responsibility of the parties’ two children and Daniel was allocated parenting time with the children. The judgment required the parties to agree on the children’s education; the children attended school in Hankinson, North Dakota. Becky remarried and her husband lived in Lisbon, North Dakota, about 65 miles from Hankinson. Believing Becky would remove the children from school in Hankinson and enroll them in school in Lisbon, Daniel filed a motion seeking to enforce the provision of the judgment requiring the parties to agree on the children’s education to prevent Becky from enrolling the children in Lisbon. Daniel also sought modification of primary residential responsibility. Becky opposed the modification of primary residential responsibility and filed a motion seeking to modify Daniel's parenting time to accommodate enrolling the children in school in Lisbon. The court found a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Becky's motion to modify parenting time, Daniel's motion to modify primary residential responsibility, and its amendment of the judgment providing the children would attend school in Hankinson. View "Krump-Wooton v. Krump" on Justia Law