Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Larry Gronland and Linda Gronland (now Coleman), married in 1971 and divorced in 1994. The district court originally awarded Linda Gronland spousal support in the amount of $1,000 per month until her death, remarriage, or when Larry began drawing Social Security, whichever occurred first. In March 2014, Linda made a motion to modify the amended judgment under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1. Larry moved to dismiss the motion, contending the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the support award because a court's jurisdiction to modify a support award was limited to ongoing support awards. Larry argued no support award was ongoing at the time of the motion because the support award terminated as of January 1, 2014, the date on which he started drawing Social Security. The court dismissed the motion for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The issue presented on appeal was whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify a spousal support award that terminated prior to Linda filing her motion to modify the award. Linda argued the district court erred in holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that she never received actual notice that Larry began drawing Social Security. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Gronland v. Gronland" on Justia Law

Six months after the divorce judgment giving Jason Capes primary residential responsibility, Jennifer Capes (now Novak), filed for substantial changes in parenting time and decision-making authority, which were granted by a different judge. Jason appealed the amended divorce judgment. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court's finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred since entry of the divorce judgment was clearly erroneous, it reversed the amended judgment and remanded to the court for entry of an amended judgment incorporating the parties' July 2014 stipulation into the original May 2013 judgment. View "Capes v. Capes" on Justia Law

In 2012, Mary Ann Klein brought an action for divorce. Wesley Klein and Mary Ann Klein were married for 31 years and had nine children together, three of whom were still minors. Mary Ann was 52 and Wesley was 53 years of age at the time of the divorce proceedings. Mary Ann appealed the trial court's award of spousal and child support. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in its award of spousal support, but concluded the court erred in calculating Wesley's income for child support purposes. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Klein v. Klein" on Justia Law

G.L. appealed a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. He argued the juvenile court erred by declaring him in default, finding the conditions and causes of the child's deprivation were likely to continue, and determining the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") did not apply. M.R., the child at issue, was placed in the custody of social services due to concerns that her mother was unfit to care for her. After the child was placed into custody, a social services employee petitioned for termination of parental rights. The petition stated that paternity had not been confirmed, but it noted an individual named V.G. could be the father. It was subsequently established that V.G. was not the father. G.L. then came forward claiming to be the father, but his paternity was never confirmed by biological testing. At a hearing on the petition, M.R.'s mother appeared and stated she desired to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights. In an interim order, the juvenile court noted ICWA might apply because G.L. was a member of the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe. The juvenile court then sent notices of the right to intervene to the tribe. In response, Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services sent a letter stating that, after reviewing the case, the tribal court and the ICWA director "would support the current Termination of Parental Rights in order to establish permanency for [M.R.]." Noting G.L. had refused paternity testing, the tribe indicated it would not intervene unless there was biological proof G.L. was M.R.'s father. At the hearing on termination of parental rights, G.L.'s counsel was present, but G.L. failed to appear. His counsel requested a continuance so G.L. could be present; the court denied the motion. G.L.'s attorney told the court he had recently learned that G.L. was incarcerated in Minnesota. The court then took a recess to allow G.L.'s attorney to contact G.L. to determine whether he could appear by telephone. After the recess, G.L.'s attorney informed the court that he chose not to attempt to contact G.L. "based on all the conversations [he] had previously with [G.L.]." The hearing then proceeded in G.L.'s absence. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court did not err when it terminated G.L.'s parental rights, and it affirmed the order. View "Interest of M.R." on Justia Law

Damon Grigg appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility. Grigg and Dusty Lemke (formerly Grigg) were divorced in 2010. The district court awarded primary residential responsibility of the couple's three children to Lemke, reasonable parenting time to Grigg, and joint decision-making to both parties. Shortly after the divorce was final, Lemke and the children moved from Bottineau to live with her father and stepmother in Cando. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding Grigg established a prima facie case for modification warranting an evidentiary hearing. View "Grigg v. Grigg" on Justia Law

LaTanya Gabaldon, formerly known as LaTanya Gabaldon-Cochran, appealed a district court judgment granting her a divorce from Jeremy Cochran. Gabaldon argued the court's property distribution was not equitable, the court erred in awarding Cochran a cash payment as part of the property distribution and the court failed to include all of her educational debt in the marital estate. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gabaldon-Cochran v. Cochran" on Justia Law