Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Jared Taylor appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from coming within 300 feet of Brianne Clarke for two years. Taylor argued the district court erred in finding he committed domestic violence, failed to make a specific finding about the threat made to Clarke, and failed to find that Clarke was in actual or imminent fear of harm. Concluding the district court’s findings were sufficient to support the issuance of a protection order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Clarke v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Yanjun Zuo appealed a district court judgment and post-judgment orders awarding Yuanyuan Wang marital property, spousal support, and primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor child. Zuo argues the court erred in its evidentiary decisions at trial, and erred in awarding spousal support and primary residential responsibility to Wang. He also argued the court erred in backdating child support. Because an interim trial court order provided child support would not begin until the month following entry of judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion by backdating Zuo’s child support obligation to February 1, 2017, and reversed and remanded for entry of judgment ruling Zuo’s child support obligation began the month following entry of judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Zuo v. Wang" on Justia Law

Sarah Tarver appealed a district court judgment dividing her and Daniel Tarver’s marital estate and establishing spousal and child support. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in its determination of spousal support. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded on the issue of spousal support. View "Tarver v. Tarver" on Justia Law

Matthew Lindseth appealed an amended judgment ordering him to pay Alaina Minyard $1,216 per month in child support. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in determining Lindseth’s income for child support purposes. View "Minyard v. Lindseth" on Justia Law

Adam Lizakowski appealed a district court judgment and post-judgment orders awarding Tonia Lizakowski marital property, primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor children, and attorney’s fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court erroneously excluded property from the marital estate. The Court affirmed in all other respects, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Lizakowski v. Lizakowski" on Justia Law