Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gregory Larson appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility of their minor children from Ana Cristina Conceicao to him. Conceicao cross-appealed an order denying her motions to relocate and for attorney fees. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the trial court's findings of fact on each party's motion were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Conceicao attorney fees. View "Larson v. Larson" on Justia Law

Gregory Larson appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility of their minor children from Ana Cristina Conceicao to him. Conceicao cross-appealed an order denying her motions to relocate and for attorney fees. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the trial court's findings of fact on each party's motion were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Conceicao attorney fees. View "Larson v. Larson" on Justia Law

This appeal resolved on in many disputes between Mark Rath and Kayla Rath. Mark appealed a disorderly conduct restraining order. In 2015, Kayla petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Mark, citing a litany of conduct purportedly rising to the level of disorderly conduct. These allegations included: Mark calling his children nearly twenty times in one night, Mark using foul language towards Kayla, Mark saying he had a business associate seek Kayla's phone records, Mark reporting Kayla to authorities out of concern she may be illegally receiving government benefits, and other miscellaneous conduct. After the hearing, the district court concluded Mark's conduct consisted of unwanted words and actions intended to adversely affect Kayla's safety, security, and privacy. After reviewing its order, the Supreme Court was concerned by the district court's lack of explanation for the necessity of the procedure it used in granting the restraining order. "While the court cited ensuring safety, minimizing conflict, and limiting the hearing to the pertinent issues before the court as justifying this procedure, the court did not elaborate on what facts or circumstances justified these concerns in this instance. Without further specificity, these conclusory justifications are insufficient to justify deviating from standard trial practices in restraining order proceedings because they leave us to speculate about the specific circumstances justifying denying Mark Rath the opportunity to directly question Kayla Rath." The Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in not allowing Mark to directly cross-examine Kayla without adequately explaining, on the record, its reasons for not allowing him to do so. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for a new hearing. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Barbara Degnan appealed a district court order denying her motion for amended findings of fact and new trial following her divorce. Barbara Degnan argued the district court erred when it divided the marital property, awarded inadequate spousal support, allowed testimony about comments made prior to marriage and refused to amend its findings or grant her a new trial. Lowell Degnan argued Barbara's appeal was frivolous and he should have been awarded attorneys fees. Finding no reversible error and that Lowell was not entitled to fees, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Degnan v. Degnan" on Justia Law

Ralph Werven appealed his judgment of divorce which divided the marital estate and awarded Laurita Werven spousal support. Ralph Werven also appealed post-judgment orders denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, denying his motion to stay the judgment, and holding him in contempt. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the divorce judgment, the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, and the order denying the motion to stay the judgment. The order holding Ralph Werven in contempt was affirmed as modified View "Werven v. Werven" on Justia Law

This case was a continuation of "contentious" divorce proceedings between parties who "accumulated significant assets during their marriage." Sandra Hendricksen Martire appealed from an amended divorce judgment modifying Michael Martire's child support obligation and leaving unaltered his spousal support obligation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in refusing to modify Martire's spousal support obligation. The Court further concluded, however, that the court failed to follow the Child Support Guidelines in setting Martire's child support obligation. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Martire' v. Martire'" on Justia Law

D.V.T., the father of minor child K.J.C., appealed a district court's final decree of adoption, terminating his parental rights and granting a petition for step-parent adoption. The father argued the district court clearly erred in terminating his parental rights and finding his consent to the adoption was not necessary. The father contended there was not clear and convincing evidence he intended to abandon the child. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court concluded evidence supports the court's findings, and, based on the entire record, it was not convinced a mistake had been made. The record reflected the mother and step-father's attorney prepared the proposed written termination order before the hearing terminating the father's rights. "We recognize the court wanted the termination and adoption finalized quickly and the use of a document prepared by one of the parties may save time, but the court has an obligation to ensure the findings are correct." The trial court's written order erred in stating no person appeared at the hearing claiming to be the natural father; however, D.V.T. did appear. The Supreme Court found the error did not require reversal. The Court modified the final decree of adoption to reflect the father was present at the hearing and objected to the petition to terminate his parental rights and grant a step-parent adoption. View "Matter of K.J.C." on Justia Law

Patricia Schurmann (now Heidt), appealed after the district court modified parenting time and child support. She argued the district court failed to properly weigh evidence of domestic violence in increasing Ralf Schurmann's parenting time. She also argued the court should not have reduced child support. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order regarding parenting time, but reversed and remanded the order regarding child support, finding that the district court relied on unreliable information to calculate child support in this case, and as such, failed to comply with statutory guidelines. The court's child support calculation was clearly erroneous. The judgment was reversed and the remanded for recalculation of child support. View "Schurmann v. Schurmann" on Justia Law

In January 2013, Mark Rath and Kayla Rath divorced. The divorce judgment awarded Kayla primary residential responsibility for the parties' two children, and Mark received supervised parenting time at the Family Safety Center. Mark appealed orders denying his various motions, including motions for orders to show cause, for an ex parte interim order to modify a judgment, and for recusal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in refusing to hold Kayla in contempt, did not err in denying Mark's request to modify the judgment, and did not err in conducting a hearing on his motions. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney fees to Kayla and in refusing to recuse himself from this case. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Heather Haag and Michael Haag were married in 2000 and have one minor child together. The parties divorced in 2009, and the district court adopted the parties' stipulation and ordered the parties have equal residential responsibility of the child. Heather moved to modify primary residential responsibility of the child, parenting time, and child support. She also moved for an ex parte interim order and filed a supporting affidavit and exhibits. She alleged Michael had a long history of using alcohol and drugs, he was arrested for cocaine possession in August 2014, and he was convicted of boating under the influence of alcohol in 2009. She also alleged Michael physically abused her during the marriage and the child witnessed the abuse. The district court granted Heather's motion for an ex parte interim order, and ordered Michael have supervised parenting time two times per week for two hours each visit. The court also found Heather established a prima facie case justifying modification and ordered an evidentiary hearing be held. After a hearing, the district court denied Heather motion to modify primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support, finding that most of the evidence Heather presented focused on Michael's pre-divorce drug and alcohol use and abusive behavior. The court, therefore, concluded Heather did not prove a material change in circumstances, and it did not consider the best interest factors to determine whether modification was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the court's decision was induced by an erroneous view of the law, and the court's finding that Heather did not prove a material change in circumstances was "clearly erroneous." View "Haag v. Haag" on Justia Law