Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A.D., the mother of P.T.D., C.R.D., P.A.D., P.P.D., and N.A.D., appealed a juvenile court order finding her five children were deprived under N.D.C.C. 27-20-02(8). The North Dakota Supreme Court previously concluded the juvenile court did not make sufficient findings of fact and remanded the case for further findings. Upon review of the additional findings, the Court affirmed the juvenile court's Amended Juvenile Findings of Fact and Order for Disposition entered on December 15, 2017. Those additional findings included: (1)one or more of the children were afraid in the family home because of the respondents' arguing and fighting; (2) one or more of the children did not feel safe in the family home; (3) one or more of the children had been physically harmed from being slapped, "smacked," or thrown; (4) one or more of the children usually "got crackers for breakfast when the parents would sleep in, and sometimes toast;" (5) the oldest child (then approximately 11 years old) would assume parental responsibilities when the respondents would sleep in until 11:00 a.m. or noon and when the respondents would leave the home sometimes as late as 9:00 p.m.; (6) the living conditions for the children were unsanitary and unsafe, including the house being a mess with garbage, dirty dishes, and dirty diapers; (7) the children were exposed to domestic violence; (8) one of the respondents broke down a door into a bedroom where the other respondent had fled with the children following an argument; and (9) respondents did not make sufficient efforts to participate in the recommended marriage counseling, anger and depression counseling, or counseling for coping with stress. View "Interest of P.T.D.; C.R.D.; P.A.D.; P.P.D.; and N.A.D." on Justia Law

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

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