Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gene Grasser appealed an amended judgment entered from March 2017, awarding primary residential responsibility to Stephanie Grasser and distributing marital property and debts. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gene's request for recusal or by finding Gene in contempt and awarding sanctions which it did not reimburse. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not clearly err by awarding Stephanie primary residential responsibility of the parties' child or by distributing the parties' marital property and debts. View "Grasser v. Grasser" on Justia Law

Thomas Solwey (Solwey) appealed the first amended judgment awarding split residential responsibility of his and Lisa Solwey-Hilbert's (Hilbert) minor children. Solwey and Hilbert were married in 1998 and divorced in 2013. Hilbert was awarded primary residential responsibility of all four children (M.L.S., C.T.S., K.E.S., and K.D.S.). Solwey was ordered to pay $1,247 per month in child support. In August 2015, Solwey moved to modify primary residential responsibility. Under the heightened standard for such motions within two years of the previous order, the district court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing for lack of prima facie case. Solwey did not appeal that order. In November 2015, Solwey moved to modify primary residential responsibility under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6(4) and (6). The district court again denied for lack of prima facie case. Solwey appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court and the district court order was reversed and remanded with an order for evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing was held in March 2017; the district court ruled at the outset of the hearing that only C.T.S. and K.E.S. (twins) would be considered under the motion to modify. Solwey argued the family should be treated as a cohesive unit and therefore K.D.S., the youngest, should also be considered under the motion to modify. The district court ruled the Supreme Court's mandate for evidentiary hearing did not apply to K.D.S. The parties mutually agreed M.L.S., who was no longer a minor, would not be considered. The first amended judgment was entered in August 2017, awarding Hilbert primary residential responsibility of M.L.S. and K.D.S., awarding Solwey primary residential responsibility of C.T.S., and awarding shared joint equal residential responsibility of K.E.S. The district court ordered that Solwey's new child support obligation of $436 per month commence June 2017. Solwey appealed, but only filed a partial transcript of the evidentiary hearing. "The North Dakota Supreme Court has said repeatedly: "The appellant assumes the consequences and the risk for the failure to file a complete transcript. If the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged error, we will decline review of the issue." Because the Supreme Court did not have the benefit of a transcript to review the testimony heard by the district court, it concluded Solwey failed to meet his burden of proving the court's findings were clearly erroneous, and “we are not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” View "Solwey v. Solwey" on Justia Law

A.D.C. appealed a juvenile court's judgments and orders terminating her parental rights. Because A.D.C.'s notice of appeal was untimely, the North Dakota Supreme Court found itself without jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. View "Interest of T.S.C." on Justia Law

Ricky and Darcy Berg married in 1984 and separated in January 2016. The district court held a trial in June 2017 to determine the distribution of marital property and spousal support. At trial, both parties testified about their marital property, marital debts, income, and expenses. Ricky Berg was represented by counsel, and Darcy Berg represented herself at trial. Ricky Berg appealed the district court’s judgment dividing his and Darcy's marital estate and award to Darcy spousal support. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court did not clearly err in dividing property and awarding spousal support when it considered the “Ruff-Fischer” factors and adequately explained its findings regarding property division and spousal support. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Berg v. Berg" on Justia Law

Glenvin Albrecht ("Glenvin") appealed, and Mark Albrecht ("Mark"), the personal representative of the estate ("the Estate") of Sharleen Albrecht ("Sharleen"), cross-appealed orders in an informal probate denying Glenvin's claims against the Estate. Glenvin argued that the district court's decision to deny Glenvin a recovery of jointly held marital assets transferred by Sharleen to the parties' son, Mark, should be reversed because, prior to Sharleen's death, she transferred the assets in violation of restraining provisions in a pending divorce proceeding. Glenvin further contended the district court abused its discretion in denying Glenvin's request for a recovery under principles of equity and its finding that Sharleen had not engaged in economic misconduct during prior divorce proceedings was clearly erroneous. The Estate argued that the district court improperly extended the time to commence an action against the Estate and erred as a matter of law in determining that Glenvin held the status of a surviving spouse with regard to the Estate. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order holding that Glenvin was a surviving spouse, denying Glenvin's request for contempt, the district court's order denying Glenvin's request for equitable relief and the district court's order denying Glenvin's request for relief from Sharleen's economic waste. View "Estate of Albrecht" on Justia Law

Jason Tuhy appealed a divorce judgment distributing marital property and awarding spousal support and attorney's fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's distribution of the parties' remainder interests in property and award of spousal support were not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion when awarding attorney's fees. View "Tuhy v. Tuhy" on Justia Law

Jeremy White appealed a district court order denying his motions for relief from a judgment relating to primary residential responsibility and for contempt against Cassie Loibl. White and Loibl had one child together, born in 2015. In March 2016, the State sued White to decide issues of child support, health insurance and who could claim the child for income tax purposes. White was incarcerated when the State filed its complaint. The Barnes County Sheriff personally served White with the complaint at the Barnes County Correctional Facility. Loibl moved to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Loibl served White with the motion by mailing it to the Barnes County Correctional Facility and two other addresses in Valley City. White did not respond to either the State's complaint or Loibl's motion. The district court entered a judgment awarding Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility of the child. The court awarded White supervised parenting time and ordered him to pay $575 per month in child support. In February 2017, White moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and for contempt against Loibl. White claimed he did not respond to Loibl's motion because he did not receive the motion. He stated he was released from jail on March 4, 2016, and did not reside at the addresses to which Loibl mailed the motion. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, White argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion because extraordinary circumstances justified relief because he did not receive Loibl's motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Jeremy White appealed a district court order denying his motions for relief from a judgment relating to primary residential responsibility and for contempt against Cassie Loibl. White and Loibl had one child together, born in 2015. In March 2016, the State sued White to decide issues of child support, health insurance and who could claim the child for income tax purposes. White was incarcerated when the State filed its complaint. The Barnes County Sheriff personally served White with the complaint at the Barnes County Correctional Facility. Loibl moved to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Loibl served White with the motion by mailing it to the Barnes County Correctional Facility and two other addresses in Valley City. White did not respond to either the State's complaint or Loibl's motion. The district court entered a judgment awarding Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility of the child. The court awarded White supervised parenting time and ordered him to pay $575 per month in child support. In February 2017, White moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and for contempt against Loibl. White claimed he did not respond to Loibl's motion because he did not receive the motion. He stated he was released from jail on March 4, 2016, and did not reside at the addresses to which Loibl mailed the motion. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, White argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion because extraordinary circumstances justified relief because he did not receive Loibl's motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Robert Riddle appealed a district court order denying his motion for new trial. On October 14, 2016, a trial was held to settle the distribution of debts and assets between then husband and wife, Mona and Robert Riddle. Mona and Robert had previously entered a settlement agreement which was rescinded after Mona discovered Robert had concealed disability income and lied about various marital assets. Due to a travel or scheduling conflict, Robert did not attend the trial. Robert did not make any pre-trial motions asking for a continuance or to be telephonically connected during the proceeding. Shortly before the trial began, counsel met in chambers and the district court permitted Robert to phone-in and make arrangements with the clerk to be connected. Robert was able to phone-in during part of the two-hour proceeding, but was disconnected at some point during the trial. Mona testified to various valuations of debts and assets in both her and Robert's possession. Robert did not testify. His counsel did not call any witnesses, offer any exhibits, and did not provide an 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. On February 22, 2017, the notice of entry of judgment was served on Robert. The district court's order analyzed the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and awarded Robert approximately 47% and Mona 52% of the marital estate. On March 16, 2017, Robert moved for a new trial arguing there was an irregularity in the proceeding and newly discovered evidence. The district court denied Robert's motion because he failed to present grounds for new trial provided in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(1) and (4). Finding no reversible error in the denial for a new trial, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Riddle v. Riddle" on Justia Law

Janiece Rebenitsch appealed a district court's judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of their child to Dustin Rebenitsch. Janiece and Dustin married in 2011 and had a child, H.J.R., in 2012. In 2014, the district court issued an order divorcing the parties and awarding equal residential responsibility. When the parties divorced, they both resided in the Bismarck area. In February 2017, Dustin moved to modify residential responsibility based on allegations of domestic violence in Janiece's home. After an investigation, social services found no evidence of abuse in Janiece's home. However, both Dustin and Janiece also sought modification because H.J.R. would be starting school, and equal residential responsibility was no longer feasible due to Janiece's move to Dickinson. At the time of the hearing, Janiece was living in Dickinson with her other daughter from a different relationship; her boyfriend, Jordan Kessel; and his two sons. Dustin lived in Bismarck with his wife, Jessica, and her two sons. At the June 2017 hearing on residential responsibility modification, several witnesses testified about Janiece and Dustin's character and ability to parent H.J.R. After the hearing, the district court found N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2 factors (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (k) favored neither party; factors (i) and (j) were inapplicable; and factor (d) favored Dustin. The district court determined the best interest factors weighed in favor of Dustin and awarded him primary residential responsibility, subject to Janiece's reasonable parenting time. On appeal, Janiece argued the district court's findings regarding factors (b) and (k) were clearly erroneous. Janiece also argued it was clear, based on the entire record, that the district court made a mistake in awarding Dustin primary residential responsibility. Finding the district court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility to Dustin, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rebenitsch v. Rebenitsch" on Justia Law