Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Angela Dieterle (now Hansen) appealed an order finding her in contempt of court for failing to cooperate in the sale of marital property and failing to follow a parenting plan. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Hansen in contempt, and affirmed. View "Dieterle v. Dieterle" on Justia Law

Marsha Brouillet appealed a divorce judgment that granted primary residential responsibility for the parties' two younger children to Bradley Brouillet, awarded him child support, and divided the parties' marital estate. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's award of primary residential responsibility for the two children, finding of Marsha Brouillet's income in awarding child support, and distribution of marital assets and debts were all supported by the record. View "Brouillet v. Brouillet" on Justia Law

In 2012 Joshua Ritter and Tara McDonald (formerly Ritter) divorced via stipulation. The parties agreed Tara would have primary residential responsibility of their two minor children, Joshua's parenting time would be determined by mutual agreement and Tara would reasonably accommodate Joshua's requests for parenting time. The parties' parenting plan allowed Joshua two successive days of uninterrupted parenting time after giving Tara at least forty-eight hours' notice and modification by mutual agreement. The district court adopted the agreed upon parenting plan in its order granting divorce. In 2015, Joshua filed a motion to modify primary residential responsibility with supporting affidavit requesting the parties be awarded equal residential responsibility. Joshua's affidavit asserted a change in his employment after the divorce judgment constituted a material change warranting modification of primary residential responsibility. At the time of divorce, Joshua was a commercial airline pilot and was out-of-town up to four nights a week. Because of his unpredictable work schedule, Joshua agreed Tara would have primary residential responsibility. Joshua changed jobs and became a pilot for a Bismarck company and worked a more predictable, weekday schedule. Joshua appealed the district court's order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility of his two children. Joshua argues the district court erred in determining he failed to make a prima facie case that a material change in circumstances existed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court order finding Joshua failed to meet a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "Ritter v. Ritter" on Justia Law

Caroline Wanttaja appealed a divorce judgment and from an order denying her motion to correct a clerical error or for a new trial. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to correct a clerical error or for a new trial to address the parties' medical bills. The Court concluded, however, the court erred as a matter of law in failing to address child support in the divorce proceedings and abused its discretion in denying her request for attorney fees. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wanttaja v. Wanttaja" on Justia Law

Adam Flaagan and Lindsay Forster (now known as Lindsay Seitz) were the parents of J.F.F. A 2010 judgment awarded Forster primary residential responsibility and awarded Flaagan parenting time. Under the judgment, Flaagan's parenting time decreased when J.F.F. started school in fall 2014. In May 2015, Flaagan moved the district court to modify Forster's primary residential responsibility, claiming a material change in J.F.F.'s circumstances occurred since entry of the 2010 judgment. Flaagan appealed the district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. The district court concluded "[Flaagan] has failed to establish that a material change has occurred in the circumstances of the parties or that modification of primary residential responsibility is in J.F.F.'s best interests." Flaagan argued the district court erred in dismissing his motion because the court, in essence, required him to establish his case for modification in order to establish his prima facie case for modification. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded. View "Forster v. Flaagan" on Justia Law

Robert and Tiffany Stock married in 2000. The parties were romantically involved six years prior to the marriage, resulting in the birth of a child, who reached the age of majority. The parties had another child, who was a minor at the time of this case's filing. Throughout their relationship, Tiffany moved multiple times so Robert could complete his undergraduate and legal studies. After he finished law school, the parties moved to Fargo, where Robert began and developed a thriving legal career. The parties separated in October 2011, reconciled shortly thereafter, and permanently separated in January 2012, with Tiffany Stock filing for divorce in January 2013. After trial, the court awarded Tiffany residential responsibility for the minor child. The court ordered Robert to pay child support. In addition, Tiffany requested spousal support. Despite having significant income, the parties lived outside their means for most of their marriage. This state of living caused the parties to incur a great deal of debt. The district court used the Ruff-Fischer guidelines to divide the parties' assets and debts. The court awarded Tiffany spousal support of $3,000 per month until Robert Stock's child support obligation ended. At that time, the support award would increase to $5,500 per month, and the award would continue at that level until either party died or when Tiffany remarried, whichever occurred first. Tiffany also requested attorney's fees. The court determined Tiffany Stock's limited earning capacity left her in need and Robert Stock had the ability to pay the fees along with his other obligations under the judgment. Accordingly, the court ordered him to pay Tiffany Stock's $31,904 outstanding balance. On appeal, Robert Stock argues the district court's award of permanent support and the amount of support awarded were clearly erroneous. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of permanent spousal support and attorney's fees. View "Stock v. Stock" on Justia Law

Shawn and LaRinda Weigel were married in 1996 and had two children together. At the time of trial, he was 43 years old and she was 42. During the marriage, he worked as an account representative for The Computer Store in Minot, and she worked for LDL Clean, Inc., a janitorial cleaning business operating the ServiceMaster franchise in Minot, which she co-owned with David Burgess. She also owned two other businesses with Burgess: LDL Spotless, Inc., and LDL Properties, LLP. LDL Properties is a real estate holding company that owns and leases three four-plexes in Minot, and LDL Spotless owns a shop condo in Minot which serves as an office for the three businesses. The parties' property interests also include a marital home, a lake cabin, and two other rental properties in Minot. The parties separated in March 2012 and thereafter equally shared residential responsibility of their children. Shawn sued LaRinda for divorce in November 2012. At trial, the parties primarily contested the valuation and distribution of their marital property and the award of residential responsibility of their children. Shawn and LaRinda both appealed the judgment distributing their marital property, granting them equal residential responsibility of their two minor children, and offsetting their child support obligations and ordering LaRinda to pay Shawn $1,280 per month for child support. Shawn challenged the district court's valuations and distribution of marital property, and LaRinda challenged the court's child support determination. The Supreme Court affirmed the court's property valuations and distribution, and reversed the child support determination. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Weigel v. Weigel" on Justia Law

In October 2014, two of M.E.'s children, N.P. and M.N., petitioned the district court for a temporary (emergency) guardianship and conservatorship. The petition alleged M.E. was in need of a guardian after falling victim to a financial scam and attempting suicide. When the petition was filed, M.E. was hospitalized at a mental health facility in Fargo. The district court, by ex parte order, appointed N.P. and M.N. as emergency co-guardians and co-conservators and also appointed a guardian ad litem for M.E. M.E. appealed the order appointing co-guardians and co-conservators of her estate and an order denying her petition to be restored to capacity. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the order denying her petition to be restored to capacity. The Court modified the order appointing co-guardians and co-conservators to restore M.E.'s right to testify in judicial or administrative proceedings and affirmed the order as modified. View "Guardianship & Conservatorship of M.E." on Justia Law

The parties Erek Bye and Amanda Robinette are the parents of twin boys. The couple never married, but they moved in together after Robinette gave birth. Their relationship deteriorated and Bye sued for custody of the twins. The case was heard before a referee and the referee awarded primary residential responsibility to Bye and ordered Robinette pay child support. Robinette moved for a district court judge to review the referee's order. The district court judge adopted the referee's order. Robinette appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the district court judge's order adopting the referee's primary residential responsibility determination. The Court reversed the portion of the district court judge's order concerning child support, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions that it calculate child support in a manner consistent with the child support guidelines. View "Bye v. Robinette" on Justia Law

The parties Kim Anderson and Biron Baker have a child together, born in 2010. Under a stipulated judgment entered in June 2011, Baker was required to provide health insurance for the child or reimburse Anderson for her monthly costs to provide health insurance for the child. Baker was also required to reimburse Anderson for 50 percent of any medical expenses not covered by insurance within 30 days of a reimbursement request from Anderson. Baker appealed a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration following an earlier order that held Baker in contempt of court for failing to reimburse Anderson for their child's medical expenses and awarding Anderson attorney's fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baker's motion. View "Anderson v. Baker" on Justia Law