Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Roy Brooks appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility. Because the Supreme Court's review of this case was "significantly hampered" by the district court's failure to make specific, detailed findings on the relevant issues, the Court reversed and remanded for further explanation of the basis for the district court's determination. View "Brooks v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Dawn Kirby appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor child with Brian Sweeney to her. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court's denial of Kirby's motion was not clearly erroneous. "A motion to modify primary residential responsibility made within two years of disposition of an earlier motion to modify primary residential responsibility is reviewed under stricter requirements. A correct result will not be set aside merely because the district court applied an incorrect, more relaxed standard if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning." View "Sweeney v. Kirby" on Justia Law

Ellen and Ivan Williams were married in 1972; Ellen sued for divorce in 2012. At the time of trial, both parties were 62 years old. During the marriage, Ellen was a homemaker and primary care provider to the parties' three children. She also worked various jobs to help support the family, and she has been employed by Farm and Ranch Guide since 2001, earning $11.83 per hour along with an annual bonus of $700. Her gross annual income was approximately $25,000. She testified she had no plans to retire and intended to work as long as she remained healthy. Ivan was employed as a salesperson for Bayer Crop Sciences since 1987. His net income was approximately $4,700 every four weeks, along with a monthly bonus of approximately $1,000. He testified he wanted to retire at age 65. Both parties testified at trial about extramarital affairs. Ellen testified she sued for divorce after she learned of Ivan's extramarital affair and his decision to move in with his girlfriend. Ellen testified she also had an extramarital affair, but it did not start until after the parties separated. The district court awarded Ellen $202,577 and Ivan $161,867 of the parties' net marital estate. None of the marital assets awarded to either party were income-producing. Ellen was also awarded her attorney fees and spousal support in the amount of $1,250 per month for four years. Ellen appealed the district court's division of the marital estate, and the length of her spousal support. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the division and award. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Sandra Adams appealed an amended supplemental judgment dividing the marital estate between her and John Adams. On appeal, Sandra argued the district court's property division was not equitable, because the court erred in not applying discounts to the values of properties awarded to her. She also argued the court erred in applying a two percent interest rate to a payment from John Adams equalizing the court's property division. Finding no reason to disturb the trial court's division of property, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Adams v. Adams" on Justia Law

Brittney Berg appealed a district court judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor child to Darin Mowan. Berg and Mowan, who never married, had a child born in 2012. Mowan resided in Minot. In May 2013, Berg moved from Minot to Illinois and then relocated to Iowa in December 2013, taking the child with her. In September 2013, Mowan sought primary residential responsibility of the child. Berg argued the district court erred by failing to make specific and detailed findings regarding incidences of domestic violence and by ignoring significant uncontested evidence favoring one party. Mowan argued the district court did not err because no credible evidence of domestic violence rising to the level requiring a rebuttable presumption existed and because the best interests of the child factors favor Mowan. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's findings under N.D.C.C.14-09-06.2(1)(j) ("factor (j)"). The Court affirmed the district court's findings under N.D.C.C.14-09-06.2(1)(b) ("factor (b)"). The Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mowan v. Berg" on Justia Law

Deanne Stai-Johnson (formerly Johnson) appealed a judicial referee's order denying her request to move out of state with the child over whom she had primary residential responsibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the judicial referee's findings on the "Stout-Hawkinson" factors were not clearly erroneous. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Thomas Feist appealed, and Cheryl Feist cross-appealed a district court divorce judgment dividing the parties' marital estate. The parties were married in 1971 and divorced in 2013. The parties had two children together who have both reached the age of majority. During the marriage, Cheryl inherited mineral and surface interests in McKenzie County from her parents and had been receiving royalty payments from those interests. In allocating the marital property between the parties, the district court awarded $1,248,358.30 (50.05%), including all of the mineral interest assets, to Cheryl and $1,245,945.76 (49.95%) to Thomas, and denied Cheryl Feist's request for attorney fees. On appeal, Thomas argued the district court erred in awarding Cheryl all of the mineral interest assets because their value was too speculative. In her cross-appeal, Cheryl argued she should have been awarded attorney fees and a greater distribution of the marital estate. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in equitably distributing the parties' marital estate and awarding all of the mineral interests to Cheryl and did not abuse its discretion in failing to award her attorney fees, it affirmed. View "Feist v. Feist" on Justia Law

Kesha Lavallie and Dustin Lavallie had a child born in 2010. Dustin claimed he was and is "an enrolled resident of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation." He stated he is "temporarily confined to the North Dakota State Penitentiary," but upon release will return home to Belcourt, North Dakota. While he claimed the child "was conceived, born and currently resides permanently on the reservation," the child's birth certificate stated the child was born in Brown County, South Dakota. Kesha filed for and received child support benefits from South Dakota from July 2011 to July 2012. South Dakota entered a support order on July 18, 2011. In August 2012, South Dakota Child Support registered the order in North Dakota, requesting the Devils Lake Regional Child Support Unit to enforce a child support order against Dustin. The North Dakota district court notified Lavallie of the registered order and informed him that he had twenty days to request a hearing on the validity of the registration and that failure to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order would result in confirmation and enforcement of the order. Lavallie failed to timely contest the order, which was then registered in North Dakota on November 7, 2012. In May 2014, Lavallie moved to dismiss the order, asserting the South Dakota court lacked personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the motion frivolous. Lavallie filed a motion to reconsider, arguing the court failed to consider his reply to the State's response to his motion to dismiss. The district court denied his motion to reconsider. Lavallie appealed the denial of the order denying reconsideration of his motion to dismiss. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Lavallie" on Justia Law

Bradley Jordet appealed district court orders consolidating cases, adopting a judicial referee's decision denying his request for a money judgment against Tracy Jordet, and denying his motion for a new trial or amended findings. Bradley argued the district court erred in consolidating his action for reimbursement with the divorce and he was entitled to a default judgment on his motion for entry of a money judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal because Bradley Jordet did not appeal from a final, appealable order. View "Jordet v. Jordet" on Justia Law

In September 2010, Chelsi Lavallie and the State of North Dakota as a statutory party in interest sued Curtis Lavallie for child support, alleging he was the natural father of a minor child born to Chelsi in 2010, he was currently incarcerated in Bismarck, conception of the child occurred in North Dakota and the State obtained personal jurisdiction over him, Chelsi Lavallie and the child lived in Rolette County, and Chelsi Lavallie assigned her right to the State to recover for benefits paid by the State for the child. The State sought to impose a future child support obligation on Curtis and also to recover a judgment for support expended to Chelsi on behalf of the child. The summons and complaint were personally served on Curtis at the state penitentiary in Burleigh County. He requested a hearing, stating he "would like to dispute the claim" he was the child's father. A notice of hearing was served on Curtis, which stated he could appear by telephone at a hearing in Rolette County, and provided him with instructions for appearing by telephone. At the hearing, a judicial referee stated the court recorder had called the prison and was informed Curtis had not made arrangements to appear by telephone and "because of some problem down there, he is not able to be removed from the cell." Curtis therefore did not appear personally or by telephone at the hearing, but the referee acknowledged he had raised a paternity issue and initially heard evidence regarding paternity. After the hearing, the referee entered a judgment stating the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action and personal jurisdiction over the parties, Curtis and Chelsi Lavallie were married and the child was conceived and born during their marriage, and Curtis was the legal father of the child and had an obligation to provide financial support for the child. A notice of entry of judgment was served by mail on Curtis, and he did not appeal that judgment. In May 2014, on motion by the State, the district court reduced Curtis' child support obligation to $28 per month during his incarceration. Curtis then moved to "take [his] rights back as a sovereign individual" and to dismiss the "child support procurement" proceeding, asserting the state district court lacked personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. He claimed that although he was temporarily confined in the state penitentiary, he has always been an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians; that Chelsi was too, and that the child was conceived and born on the reservation. The State resisted Curtis' motion to dismiss, asserting the state court had concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate child support. The district court denied Curtis' motion to dismiss, ruling the state and tribal courts had concurrent jurisdiction to determine the child support obligation. The court subsequently denied Curtis' amended motion to dismiss the child support proceeding. The Supreme Court concluded the district court had jurisdiction to determine his child support obligation, and affirmed. View "Lavallie v. Lavallie" on Justia Law