Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Carleen and Paul McCarthy appealed their divorce judgment distributing the parties' marital property and awarding permanent spousal support. Carleen argued on appeal that the district court's property distribution to Paul McCarthy was clearly erroneous. Specifically, she argued it was clearly erroneous to allow him to "buy out" her interest in the remainder interest he inherited for $125,000.00, because doing so created a substantial disparity that was not adequately justified or explained by the district court. On cross-appeal, Paul argued the district court's award of spousal support to Carleen McCarthy was clearly erroneous because she did not prove she has a present or future need justifying the award. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of divorce and its property distribution. View "McCarthy v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Tina George petitioned the district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against her ex-husband Jess George, alleging he had contacted her repeatedly following the parties' separation and subsequent divorce in an attempt to reconcile their relationship. Specifically, she claimed he committed various acts of disorderly conduct by driving past her residence on numerous occasions, sending her ten dozen flowers to her place of employment on their anniversary, following her from a family gathering, and accessing her voice mail messages. She also claimed that several months earlier she had tried to obtain a disorderly conduct restraining order against him, but that petition was dismissed. The district court issued a temporary restraining order against Jess George. At a February 2014 hearing, Tina George testified that although she asked her ex-husband to stop contacting her, he persisted in trying to talk with her about reconciling their relationship. She testified that after she requested he leave her alone, he continued to drive by her residence, approach her at her place of employment and in public, and send her numerous text messages. Before the hearing, Jess George submitted two affidavits in which he and the parties' eldest son contested Tina George's allegations. In his affidavit, Jess George alleged she had been dishonest about the facts presented in her petition, and he responded to her specific allegations. Jess George alleged that when he sent the ten dozen roses to her, he had been getting "mixed signals" and believed there was a chance of reconciling the relationship. In regard to the the family gathering, to which they both had been invited, and seeing her leave visibly upset, he chose to follow her in an attempt to discuss what had transpired. He also alleged that he did not tamper with Tina George's cell phone to access her voice mail messages; rather, their youngest child called her phone and entered her password to gain access to the voice mail message after he had expressed concerns about inappropriate text messages and pictures he had seen on her phone. Although Jess George admits he listened to the message, he insisted he did so only because he was concerned about what their child had heard in the message. After hearing Tina George's testimony and having the opportunity to observe her demeanor, without allowing cross-examination or testimony from Jess George, the district court dismissed the petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Jess George, concluding she had failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the issuance of a restraining order. Although the district court said Jess George's behavior was "ill conceived," it found his behavior did not rise to the level of disorderly conduct. Tina George appealed. Because the district court's findings are unclear and the law may have been misapplied in determining whether sufficient grounds existed to justify the issuance of a disorderly conduct restraining order, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "George v. George" on Justia Law

Dustin Lerud and Megan Grossman had a child together. As part of the original judgment, Lerud was required to pay child support based on imputation of his income at the minimum wage. Grossman requested a review of Lerud's child support obligation. The State moved to modify the judgment increasing his child support obligation to $542 per month. The judicial referee granted the State's motion and imputed Lerud's income based on a North Dakota statewide average. Lerud argued on appeal of the order that the district court erred in finding that the North Dakota child support guidelines required the imputation of a North Dakota farm manager's statewide earnings average in determining underemployment and imputation of income. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court correctly imputed Lerud's income under the North Dakota child support guidelines using a North Dakota statewide average. View "Johnson v. Lerud" on Justia Law

In 2013, the State petitioned for termination of R.P. and J.P.'s guardianship of their grandchildren, P.T., M.T., A.M.T., R.T., and S.M., alleging the children were deprived, the children had been in foster care for 450 out of the previous 660 nights, and it was in the best interests of the children that the guardianship be terminated. A combined hearing was held on the petitions for termination of guardianship and the petitions for termination of parental rights of the children's parents, who failed to appear. At the hearing, various social workers of Burleigh County Social Services testified on behalf of the State. R.P. and J.P. and several of the children also testified. After the hearing, the judicial referee granted the petitions terminating J.P. and R.P.'s guardianship, as well as the parental rights. On appeal, R.P. and J.P. argued they proved by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was in the children's best interests to continue the guardianship. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's findings that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the guardianship. View "Guardianship of P.T." on Justia Law

Jerry Harvey appealed a district court judgment granting a divorce to Christine Rasmussen Harvey, distributing the parties' marital estate, awarding her primary residential responsibility of the parties' three minor children, and denying him spousal support. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's decision to award Christine Rasmussen Harvey primary residential responsibility was not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court erred by failing to consider reservation of jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future. As such, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for additional findings on the issue of Jerry Harvey's disabled status. View "Harvey v. Harvey" on Justia Law

M.U. is the mother of D.H., born in 1998, and J.A.H., born in 2001. On September 6, 2013, M.U. sought assistance from Burleigh County Social Services due to concerns she was being stalked. Later the same day, a juvenile court officer issued a temporary custody order granting Morton County Social Services temporary custody of the children. At a shelter care hearing, a judicial referee found continued shelter care was necessary, as there was probable cause for deprivation. The State petitioned to obtain custody of the children, alleging the children were deprived. M.U., the mother, appealed the juvenile court order removing her children and placing them in the custody of Morton County Social Services. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court remanded this case with instructions that, within sixty days from the filing of this opinion, the juvenile court make expedited findings of fact to determine whether D.H. and J.A.H. were deprived. View "Interest of J.A.H." on Justia Law

Cheryl Wilson appealed a district court judgment granting her a divorce from Brian Wilson, distributing the parties' marital estate, and ordering Brian Wilson pay child support. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in distributing the parties' marital estate. However, the Court concluded the district court incorrectly calculated Brian Wilson's 2011 and 2012 child support obligation. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Alonna Norberg appealed a district court judgment granting her a divorce from Jon Norberg, distributing the parties' marital estate, awarding Jon Norberg primary residential responsibility of the parties' three minor children, and denying her request for spousal support. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court's decision to award Jon Norberg primary residential responsibility of the children was not clearly erroneous. However, the Supreme Court also concluded the court erred by failing to include all of the parties' property in the property distribution, failing to retain jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future, and forgiving Jon Norberg's child support arrearages. View "Norberg v. Norberg" on Justia Law

K.G., the father of minor child G.K.G., appealed a district court order denying his motion to vacate an order terminating his parental rights and refusing to vacate an order for ongoing child support. Concluding the father's request for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 was not properly before the district court, the Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the father's motion to vacate.View "In the matter of G.K.G." on Justia Law

Amanda Kulbacki appealed a district court judgment awarding her a divorce from Nicholas Michael and granting Michael's mother grandparent visitation. Kulbacki argued: (1) the district court erred in awarding grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C.; (2) that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., violated the United States and North Dakota Constitutions; (3) that the district court erred in including a provision that a future termination of Michael's parental rights would not impact his mother's visitation rights; and (4) that the district court erred in denying Kulbacki's motion for attorney fees as a victim of domestic violence contemplated in section 14-09-29(4), N.D.C.C. Upon review of the facts of the underlying case, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's determination that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., was constitutional and that grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., would not automatically end upon termination of Michael's parental rights. The Court further determined the district court unconstitutionally placed the burden on Kulbacki to show grandparent visitation was not in the child's best interests and made a legal error in determining attorney fees by impermissibly considering Kulbacki's return to Michael after she experienced domestic abuse at his hands. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Kulbacki v. Michael" on Justia Law