Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

B.K.J. appealed a district court order appointing J.W. and Guardian and Protective Services, Inc. ("G.A.P.S"), as her co-guardians. B.K.J.'s niece, J.W., petitioned for the appointment of a guardian and a conservator on grounds B.K.J. suffered mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease and dementia and had shown decline in her ability to care for herself and her finances. Particularly, J.W. asserted B.K.J. had over $600,000 in unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties and had allegedly been taken advantage of monetarily by certain friends and family members. After a hearing for emergency guardianship, the district court appointed J.W. and G.A.P.S. as emergency co-guardians to B.K.J. pending further hearing. The district court appointed a physician and a visitor to examine B.K.J., and an attorney to represent B.K.J. as guardian ad litem. A hearing was held on the petition. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties stipulated that a guardianship was necessary for B.K.J., and that she did not oppose the appointment of First International Bank as her conservator. The court-appointed physician, the court-appointed visitor, B.K.J.'s guardian ad litem, and others testified regarding the extent of B.K.J.'s incapacity, the necessity of a guardian, and who should be appointed as B.K.J.'s guardian. B.K.J. testified that she did not want J.W. appointed as her guardian and nominated two of her friends, F.C. and T.C., to be appointed as her co-guardians. The district court appointed First International Bank as B.K.J.'s conservator and appointed J.W. and G.A.P.S. as B.K.J.'s co-guardians, concluding the evidence established they were the proper and best qualified persons to serve as her guardians and represent the best interests of B.K.J. B.K.J. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing J.W. and G.A.P.S. as B.K.J.'s co-guardians. View "Guardianship/Conservatorship of B.K.J." on Justia Law

Andrew Votava appealed a district court order that denied his request to hold Kelly Votava in contempt and modified his parenting time. Upon review of the specific facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to find Kelly Votava in contempt, but the Court concluded the court erred in modifying Andrew Votava's parenting time without a motion or notice. View "Votava v. Votava" on Justia Law

The parties were married in August 2009 when Kevin Fugere was 51 years old and Marie Fugere was 46 years old, and they lived on a ranch Kevin owned. According to Kevin Fugere, his net worth at the time of the marriage exceeded $3 million, consisting mainly of the ranch which he had operated since 1981. Marie Fugere, having recently completed bankruptcy, brought to the marriage her Post Office Thrift Savings Account worth approximately $100,000 and some personal property. Marie Fugere eventually quit her job as postmaster, assisted with the ranch work, and did most of the household chores. She had emotional problems and drank excessively during the marriage. She attempted suicide on two occasions and spent time at a treatment facility in Grand Forks. Following a quarrel with Kevin Fugere after Christmas 2012, Marie Fugere left the ranch in early January 2013. Kevin Fugere filed for divorce shortly thereafter. Marie Fugere appealed the judgment of divorce, the division their marital estate, and her award of rehabilitative spousal support. Because the district court's property distribution from this marriage was not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Fugere v. Fugere" on Justia Law

The parties married in 1992 and divorced in 2012. Under the divorce judgment, the parties were awarded joint decision making for their two minor children, and Brenda Schiele was awarded primary residential responsibility. At the time the divorce judgment was entered, neither party had residential responsibility for their youngest child, C.B.S., as he was in the custody of the State and resided at the Jamestown State Hospital, and the divorce judgment did not provide a child support obligation for C.B.S. In spring 2013, C.B.S. was admitted into the Life Skills and Transition Center in Grafton; Cass County Social Services closed its case, and returned residential responsibility of C.B.S. to the parties, "per the terms of [their] divorce decree." In October 2013, Brenda Schiele moved to establish or modify child support for C.B.S. No written order was issued after the hearing on the motion, but the district court orally ruled Bradley Schiele had an obligation to pay child support. Bradley Schiele moved for relief from the judgment, or alternatively, to amend the judgment, requesting the parties' divorce judgment be amended to provide that neither party be awarded primary residential responsibility of C.B.S. because the child did not live with either party. The referee denied the motion because it was untimely and found Bradley Schiele had not alleged facts to support modifying residential responsibility. Bradley Schiele filed a request for review of the referee's decision, and the district court affirmed. The district court remanded the matter to the referee for a determination of child support, and a second amended divorce judgment was entered. On appeal, Bradley Schiele argued the district court erred in ruling he had an obligation to pay child support while C.B.S. was not living in either party's home and erred in determining he was not entitled to an offset of his child support obligation for benefits paid on behalf of C.B.S. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in ordering Bradley Schiele to pay child support and did not err in failing to offset the child support obligation based on the benefits the child receives. View "Schiele v. Schiele" on Justia Law

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