Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ethan Mattingley and Rebecca Schweitzer had one child, born in 2012. Schweitzer lived in Minot and Mattingley lived in Velva, approximately 22 miles southeast of Minot. In 2014 both parties sought primary residential responsibility of the child. The district court, through Judge Hagar, entered an interim order in February 2015 establishing parenting time and requiring Mattingley to pay $970 per month in child support. Approximately one month after entry of the interim order, Mattingley moved to modify child support. While the motion was pending, Mattingley moved to recuse Judge Hagar. In June 2015, Judge Hagar entered an order decreasing Mattingley's child support obligation. In July 2015, Judge Hagar denied Mattingley's motion to recuse, but subsequently disqualified himself from the case on the same day. Judge Louser was assigned to the case and presided over a September 2015 trial. Before trial, Judge Louser informed the parties she intended to "proceed anew on all issues raised in the initial pleadings" including primary residential responsibility and child support. After trial, Judge Louser informed the parties of a personal conflict and requested the case be assigned to another judge. Presiding Judge Lee assigned himself to the case, awarded primary residential responsibility of the child to Schweitzer and established parenting time for Mattingley. The court found it was in the child's best interests to live with Schweitzer in Minot where the child would be attending school. Judge Lee also addressed Mattingley's motion to recuse and concluded it divested Judge Hagar of authority to proceed in the case. The court vacated Judge Hagar's order modifying child support and reinstated a $970 per month of child support amount under the February 2015 interim order. After filing his notice of appeal, Mattingley moved to modify child support because he lost his job in March 2016. After a hearing the district court reduced Mattingley's child support obligation. Mattingley argued the district court erroneously calculated child support. He also argued the court erred in vacating the June 2015 order modifying child support. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Judge Lee erroneously vacated Judge Hagar's June 2015 order modifying child support. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Schweitzer v. Mattingley" on Justia Law

Spencer and Rebecca Curtiss were divorced and had two minor children. Spencer was awarded primary residential custody of the children by a district court in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Spencer moved to North Dakota in 2009 and Rebecca moved to North Dakota a year later. In February 2011, Spencer was convicted and incarcerated at the North Dakota State Penitentiary. In March 2011, Rebecca moved the North Dakota district court to amend the divorce judgment to provide her with primary residential responsibility of the children. The district court granted the motion and awarded Spencer supervised parenting time every other weekend at the penitentiary. The district court issued a Second Amended Judgment modifying Spencer's child support obligation in October 2013. In July 2015, Spencer moved the district court to enforce the existing judgment regarding his parenting time, arguing Rebecca was not bringing the children to the penitentiary to visit him. In November 2015, Rebecca moved the district court to modify the Second Amended Judgment to suspend Spencer's parenting time while he was incarcerated. In support of her motion, Rebecca argued that she and the children's therapist believed any visits to the penitentiary were harmful to the children. After a hearing, the district court entered a Third Amended Judgment ordering that, while Spencer was incarcerated, the children were not required to visit him, but if the children wanted to, the parenting time had to be supervised by a professional such as a counselor or a therapist. The district court also ordered Spencer could set up telephone calls and letters through the children's therapist, and that all communication had to be supervised by a professional. Spencer moved the district court to reconsider. The district court denied Spencer Curtiss's motion. Spencer appealed the Third Amended Judgment. After review, the Supreme Court found that the district court made no findings as to whether a material change in circumstances occurred, whether suspended visitation was necessary because visitation was likely to endanger the children, and whether modification of the Second Amended Judgment was necessary to serve the best interests of the children. As a result, the Court reversed the district court and remanded with instructions that it make specific findings. View "Curtiss v. Curtiss" on Justia Law

Tina Raap and Lance Lenton divorced in January 2011. They have one minor child. Lenton was a self-employed farmer. The district court awarded Raap primary residential responsibility of the child, and calculated Lenton's child support obligation at $1,458 per month. In the original order for child support, the district court considered Lenton's tax returns from 2005 to 2009 and found that relying only on the information contained in the five-year period of Lenton's tax returns was not representative of Lenton's income, rebutting the presumptively correct amount of his child support obligation. Instead of using Lenton's tax returns, the district court used a Farm Credit Service Statement and determined Lenton held grain in storage that he could sell at any time for profit, calculated the profit from the potential sale, and used that amount to offset his farm losses to calculate his child support obligation. Lenton appealed the 2011 judgment, but did not challenge the district court's calculation of his child support obligation in that action. Lenton argued the district court erred when calculating his child support obligation by not relying on his tax returns, erred by using the R & I document instead of his tax returns, and erred in considering rental and other income in addition to the R & I document. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court to calculate Lenton's child support obligation in accordance with the child support guidelines. View "Raap v. Lenton" on Justia Law

The district court granted the parties a divorce in April 2013 and after an October 2013 trial, issued an amended supplemental judgment in June 2014 dividing the parties' complex marital estate valued at approximately $46,500,000. Sandra Adams appealed the decision and the Supreme Court affirmed. The judgment dividing the marital estate required the parties to equally share the profits of their jointly-owned businesses from April 2, 2013, through January 2014. The parties disagreed over the profits generated from the businesses during that time. Each party hired an accountant to calculate the business profits. The parties' profit calculations differed by approximately $1.5 million in cash retained by the businesses due to depreciation expenses. John Adams' accountant deducted the $1.5 million from his profit calculation. Sandra Adams' accountant included the $1.5 million in his profit calculation. Both parties challenged the district court's determination of the parties' business profits. Sandra argued the court erred by failing to add back non-cash deductions for depreciation and amortization. John argued the court erred by including profits earned in January, February and March 2013. The Supreme Court concluded, after review, that the district court's decision to use figures deducting depreciation expenses was supported by the evidence and was within the range of evidence presented. However, the court's decision to consider the additional evidence and make additional findings relating to a business property's remodel was contrary to the Supreme Court's affirmance of the amended supplemental judgment and therefore erroneous. The Supreme Court reversed that part of the district court's order requiring Sandra to pay $225,000 to John for expenses associated with the remodel, and remanded for a recalculation of the amounts owed to the parties. View "Adams v. Adams" on Justia Law

Robert and Vineca Peterson divorced in 1996. The district court ordered Robert to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month until Vineca either died or remarried. In January 2015 Vineca petitioned the district court to find Robert in contempt for failing to pay spousal support since September 2014. Robert filed a cross-motion seeking reduction or termination of his spousal support obligation. The district court found Robert in contempt for failing to pay spousal support, denied his request to modify or eliminate the support obligation and ordered him to reimburse Vineca's attorneys fees. Robert appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding evidence supported the district court's finding that Robert had funds to pay his spousal support obligation in 2014 and 2015. "The district court did not act in an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable manner, nor did it misinterpret or misapply the law. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding Robert Peterson in contempt of failing to pay spousal support to Vineca Peterson." View "Peterson v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Helen and Rodney Rebel were married in 1989 and owned a farming and ranching operation. In 2010, Helen Rebel sued for divorce. They had two children, one of whom was a minor at the time of the divorce. Helen Rebel appealed a judgment granting her a divorce from Rodney Rebel, awarding her primary residential responsibility and child support for the minor child, and distributing their marital property. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court adequately explained its disparity in distributing the parties' marital property and the distribution was not clearly erroneous. The Court further concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding interest on Rodney's delayed cash payments to Helen. View "Rebel v. Rebel" on Justia Law

Scott Klein appealed, and Janis Klein cross-appealed, a district court order denying Scott's motion to terminate spousal support. In the divorce judgment, the district court awarded Janis permanent spousal support of $4,500 per month until such time as she died or remarried. Scott alleged Janis habitually cohabitated with another individual in a relationship analogous to marriage for at least one year, as required to terminate a permanent spousal support award under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3). Janis, among other arguments, argued N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3) did not apply to cohabitation prior to August 1, 2015. Because he did not satisfy the requirements under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3), the district court denied Scott Klein's motion to terminate the spousal support. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial. View "Klein v. Klein" on Justia Law

Mark and Kayla Rath were divorced in January 2013. Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility of the couple's children. Mark was awarded supervised parenting time. Mark filed a motion for an order to show cause and a motion for relief from the original divorce judgment. He argued both motions in one brief, asserting Kayla violated his due process and First Amendment rights by monitoring his phone calls with the children. He also argued Kayla violated the terms of the divorce judgment by making the children unavailable for scheduled calls, ending calls prematurely, and refusing to allow one of the children to accept a cell phone he sent as a gift. Finally, Mark asserted the district court judge presiding over his case failed to remain impartial and should have recused himself. The district court denied Mark's motion for an order and for relief. Finding no reversible error in the district court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

K.P. appealed an order appointing a conservator and co-guardians for his adult uncle, R.G. In September 2014, R.G. lived in one of several mobile homes on land in rural McKenzie County owned by him and members of his family. R.G.'s brother helped care for him until that brother died in May 2014. According to R.G., his niece, S.P., became his caregiver after his brother's death, and she lived near Billings and usually saw him once or twice a month. In September 2014, law enforcement officers raided the property where R.G.'s mobile home was located as part of an investigation of others. According to a McKenzie County Deputy Sheriff, R.G.'s mobile home had dog feces throughout and did not have running water, a sewer or septic system, a furnace, a working refrigerator, or an adequate food supply. After the law enforcement raid, C.G., a niece of R.G.'s, petitioned for appointment of an emergency conservator and guardian for her uncle, alleging he was between 86 and 87 years old and was being unduly influenced by S.P., who was nominated as his attorney-in-fact under a July 2014 durable power of attorney. C.G.'s petition sought to have R.G. declared an incapacitated person and to establish protective proceedings for his residential, medical, and financial affairs. C.G. thereafter petitioned for appointment of a conservator and a guardian for R.G. At the hearing, K.P. testified his sister, S.P., was willing to waive her appointment as her uncle's designated attorney-in-fact and healthcare agent under the July 2014 power of attorney and K.P. sought to be appointed as his uncle's conservator and guardian as the named alternate under that document. The court appointed GAPS, K.N., and S.S., a granddaughter of R.G.'s brother, as co-guardians and appointed American State Bank & Trust as conservator for R.G. K.P. appealed that decision. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in finding good cause not to appoint K.P. as guardian and conservator for R.G. and did not abuse its discretion in appointing other individuals and entities as conservator and co-guardians for R.G. View "Guardianship/Conservatorship of R.G." on Justia Law

The State petitioned to terminate a father's and mother's parental rights in October 2015. The father received the petition, affidavit in support of termination and an affidavit of mailing while incarcerated at the Richland county jail. The affidavit of mailing, which was also received by the guardian ad litem, listed the father's address at the Richland county jail. The guardian ad litem filed a report supporting termination, listing the father's whereabouts as unknown and his last contact with social services as June 2014. The amended report stated the mother was voluntarily terminating her parental rights. The court mailed the report to the father at the Richland county jail. The father appealed the juvenile court's order adopting a judicial referee's decision to terminate his parental rights. He appealed both the juvenile court order and the judicial referee's order, arguing he was denied due process of law because the guardian ad litem failed to fulfill mandatory responsibilities. The Supreme Court found the guardian ad litem's failure to interview the father did not violate the father's constitutional right to due process. The juvenile court order adopting the judicial referee's order and terminating the father's parental rights was affirmed. View "Interest of N.A." on Justia Law