Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Keanna Schneider appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify the parenting time of Keaton O'Hara from unsupervised to supervised parenting time. Schneider sought modification after an incident in which O'Hara punched her in the face in front of their child during an exchange. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in handling this case and reversed the court's order denying Schneider's motion, and remanded for additional findings. View "O'Hara v. Schneider" on Justia Law

Sandra Hoverson appeals a district court order resolving a parenting time dispute. She argued the district court improperly modified parenting time without a formal motion filed by either party. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's order did not modify the amended judgment and affirmed. View "Hoverson v. Hoverson" on Justia Law

C.D.G.E. was born in 2010. Since 2014, J.E. had primary residential responsibility of the child. A.P. was obligated to pay monthly child support payments. J.E. petitioned the district court to terminate A.P.'s parental rights. With his petition, he submitted an affidavit from A.P. in which she consented to terminating her parental rights. The petition referenced N.D.C.C. 14-15-19, which applied only "in connection with an adoption action," which was never contemplated here. All further proceedings, including J.E.'s proposed default order, J.E.'s argument at the hearing on the petition, and motion to reconsider, were considered by the parties and the district court under N.D.C.C. 27-20-45, which governed termination of parental rights where no adoption was pending. At the parental-termination hearing, J.E. argued that A.P. had both: (1) abandoned her child; and (2) consented to terminating her parental rights. The district court denied the petition without finding on the record whether A.P. had abandoned the child. In denying J.E.'s petition, the district court found that A.P. had not validly consented to terminating her parental rights. Ultimately, the district court denied the father's petition, concluding the child's welfare would not be served by terminating A.P.'s parental rights. J.E. appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition where it was not established that denying the petition would seriously affect the child's welfare. View "Matter of C.D.G.E." on Justia Law

Samuel Rathbun appealed a district court order modifying his child and spousal support obligations. Samuel argued the district court erred by not modifying his child support. The Supreme Court concluded a district court erred when it fails to correctly apply the child support guidelines when imputing income to an obligor. The district court's order and judgment was reversed and this case was remanded with instructions that it calculate child support consistent with the child support guidelines. View "Rathbun v. Rathbun" on Justia Law

This case was the result of a long history between Jon Norberg and Alonna Knorr. Once married, they divorced after Knorr alleged Norberg sexually abused her after drugging her with Propofol. Knorr's allegations resulted in criminal charges against Norberg, and a jury acquitted him of all charges in 2012. Norberg appealed the district court order denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial. He argued collateral estoppel established as a matter of law Knorr's liability for his abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and defamation claims, and it should not have been redecided by the jury. He further argued Knorr's dismissal of her lawsuit prevented her from raising affirmative defenses to his claims. Concluding collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of matters previous determined, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Norberg v. Norberg" on Justia Law

Sandra Glass-Lenertz appealed an amended judgment terminating James Glass's spousal support obligation to her. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating spousal support as of the date of Lenertz's remarriage in 2002. View "Glass v. Glass" on Justia Law

Thomas Solwey appealed a district court order denying his petition to modify primary parental responsibility. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding Thomas Solwey established a prima facie case for modification and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Court declined his request that the Supreme Court order a different district judge hear the matter on remand. View "Solwey v. Solwey" on Justia Law

Daniel Raak appealed and Danel Jacobs-Raak (now known as Danel Jacobs) cross-appealed a divorce judgment distributing their marital property, and ordering Raak to pay child support. Except with regard to the division of the mineral estate, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err as a matter of law, did not abuse its discretion, and its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. “When the parties agree to a division of property, the district court should explain its reasons for not dividing the property according to that agreement.” The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with respect to the division of a mineral interest for an identical division of that interest or an explanation concerning the division of that mineral interest. View "Jacobs-Raak v. Raak" on Justia Law

Jerry Harvey and Christine Rasmussen divorced in January 2014. The parties had three children together, and Rasmussen was awarded primary residential responsibility of the children. In December 2015, Rasmussen moved to modify Harvey's parenting time and requested the court find Harvey in contempt. In April 2016, the district court granted Rasmussen's motion, modified Harvey's parenting time, found Harvey in contempt, and ordered Harvey pay Rasmussen's attorney's fees and costs. Harvey appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. The district court found Harvey had the ability to pay Rasmussen's costs and fees, but did not make any findings about Rasmussen's need. The court ordered costs and attorney's fees under both the contempt and divorce statutes, but did not provide the required analysis for attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. section 14-05-23. Because the court did not award attorney's fees only for the contempt and it did not make any findings about Rasmussen's need, its findings were insufficient for appellate review. The case was therefore remanded for the district court to make its required findings. View "Rasmussen v. Harvey" on Justia Law

Shane Stolz appealed the district court's order: (1) denying his motion to vacate judgment and the judgment granting Stacy Hildebrand primary residential responsibility of their two minor children; (2) requiring Stolz to make $761 per month in child support payments; and (3) partitioning real property held jointly between them. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion denying Stolz's motion to vacate, the Supreme Court affirmed. However, the judgment incorrectly stated the matter came before the district court "on motion" and "as a stipulated divorce action," rather than an action for partition of real property and for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The Supreme Court remanded this matter back to the district court to correct the judgment to accurately reflect this action. View "Hildebrand v. Stolz" on Justia Law