Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Alane Schmuck, now known as Alane Dosmann, appeals from a district court's divorce judgment denying her an award of spousal support and declining to retain jurisdiction over spousal support. Dosmann filed for divorce in August 2014. The parties filed a joint stipulation, resolving many of the issues for trial. The parties litigated a number of issues, including the division of property and debts and whether an award of spousal support was appropriate. After a bench trial, the district court adopted the parties' stipulation, with the exception of the stipulated amount of Schmuck's gross income. The district court identified and valued the remaining marital property and debts. In dividing the marital estate and in deciding spousal support under the "Ruff-Fischer" guidelines, the district court made extensive findings of fact. After weighing the factors, the district court awarded fifty-five percent of the marital estate to Dosmann and denied her an award of spousal support. The district court did not retain jurisdiction over spousal support. Dosmann appealed the denial of her requests for support and to for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over spousal support. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's judgment. View "Schmuck v. Schmuck" on Justia Law

North Dakota and Shannon Strating appealed a district court order granting Strating and Ken Andres equal residential responsibility of Strating and Andres' child. Strating and Andres were the non-marital parents of one child. Strating applied for child support and the North Dakota Child Support Enforcement Unit commenced a paternity action against Andres. An interim order gave Strating primary residential responsibility and gave Andres parenting time once per week and every other weekend and imposed a child support obligation on Andres. At the conclusion of trial, the district court judge suggested Strating would receive primary residential responsibility and asked Strating and Andres to develop a parenting plan. Strating and Andres were unable to agree on a parenting plan. The district court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and an Order for Judgment granting equal residential responsibility. No child support was ordered. Strating moved the district court to amend its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment. The district court denied her motion and the State and Strating appealed. Strating argued the district court erred in its analysis of the best interest factors and in its parenting plan and by issuing a written order inconsistent with its oral order. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to add the missing statutorily mandated child support calculations and parenting plan provisions. The Court affirmed the remainder of the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Andres" on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Kayla Rath were divorced in January 2013. Kayla Rath was awarded primary residential responsibility of the couple's children, and Mark Rath was awarded supervised parenting time. This Court decided a number of appeals stemming from their divorce. The divorce judgment allows Mark Rath to call the children each Monday and every other Friday and Sunday between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mark Rath asserts Kayla Rath has failed to abide by these terms, and he filed a motion for the district court to order Kayla Rath to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Mark Rath supplemented his motion with an affidavit detailing Kayla Rath's allegedly contemptuous acts. In the affidavit, Mark Rath described two specific occasions--one in November 2015 and one in December 2015--on which he asserts Kayla Rath attempted to reschedule his phone conversations with the children. The affidavit of Mark Rath states that two weeks before the scheduled visit in December, Kayla Rath attempted to reschedule the time for the visit. The district court denied Mark Rath's motion before Kayla Rath filed a reply. The court found that Mark Rath's allegations, accepted as true for purposes of the motion, did not warrant a contempt finding. Mark Rath appealed. On appeal, Mark Rath argues the district court abused its discretion when it found contempt proceedings were unwarranted, and the court erred when it denied his motion before Kayla Rath filed a reply. The district court has broad discretion in making contempt determinations. We affirm. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Patricia Langwald appealed a divorce judgment distributing the parties' marital property and awarding child support. She argued the district court incorrectly valued and distributed the marital property. She also argued the district court incorrectly calculated child support. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the property valuation and distribution, but reversed and remanded for the district court to properly calculate child support. View "Langwald v. Langwald" 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

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