Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Justin Combs and Lisa Combs were in the midst of a divorce. Dallas Lund was dating Lisa. In the early hours of March 23, 2014, Lisa had an argument with one of her children at the Combs' residence. The argument became physical, and Lisa called Lund, asking him to come over to help her. On March 27, 2014, Justin Combs and the Combs' children filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Lund. The district court granted a temporary order and set a hearing. According to the children's testimony, Lund used physical force with one or more of the Combs' children. Lisa and Lund testified that Lund did not. The children testified they were afraid of Lund. Lund appealed the district court order granting Justin and the children a disorderly conduct restraining order against him. Lund argued the district court failed to make the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law under required by statute. Lund also argued the district court abused its discretion in issuing the order because the order improperly created a right of review or modification in a divorce proceeding to which Lund was not a party. We reverse and remand. The Supreme Court found Lund's arguments persuasive. It reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Combs v. Lund" on Justia Law

Mervyn Mertz appeals from a district court divorce judgment distributing marital assets and debts and ordering him to pay spousal support. He argues the district court erroneously awarded permanent spousal support and the district court's division of assets and debts is clearly erroneous. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: the district court only found that Darlene Mertz was a disadvantaged spouse, without analysis under the "Ruff-Fischer" guidelines. The district court also awarded spousal support in excess of the amount requested. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the district court's findings were inadequate and it misapplied the law. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the spousal support and property distribution issues. View "Mertz v. Mertz" on Justia Law

Glenvin Albrecht sued Sharleen Albrecht for a divorce in February 2010, after nearly 50 years of marriage. After an evidentiary hearing in October 2012, a "judgment" was filed on October 19, 2012, "order[ing], adjudg[ing] and decree[ing]" that each party was entitled to a divorce from the other on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and reserving disposition of all property issues for further proceedings. After another evidentiary hearing in March 2013, the district court issued a memorandum opinion on August 2, 2013, stating Sharleen Albrecht had died after the March 2013 hearing and distributing the parties' marital property equally. The court awarded Sharleen Albrecht assets valued at $702,290 and Glenvin Albrecht assets valued at $2,333,248, and ordered him to pay her $815,479 to equalize the property distribution. The court also awarded each party half of the proceeds from the sale of corn and soybeans and half of future payments from Sharleen Albrecht's two pensions, payable in a qualified domestic relations order. The court explained the marriage was long-term and none of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines established any reason to distribute the marital property unequally. The court issued a subsequent order substituting Sharleen Albrecht's estate as a party in the divorce action and denying Glenvin Albrecht's motion for clarification of the award of proceeds from the corn and soybeans and the date of division of Sharleen Albrecht's pensions. Glenvin Albrecht appealed the judgment distributing the parties' marital property, substituting his ex-wife's estate in place of his ex-wife. Upon review of the matter, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the death of Sharleen Albrecht before entry of a final judgment abated the divorce action. The holding was reversed and the case remanded for dismissal of the divorce action. View "Albrecht v. Albrecht" on Justia Law

Gardell Frey married Elizabeth Wonser (previously Frey) in 2003 and the parties divorced in 2008. Based on a settlement agreement between the parties, Wonser was awarded primary residential responsibility of the parties' two children, A.H.F., born in 2003, and A.E.F., born in 2007. After the divorce, Wonser and the children continued to live in Mott. In January 2011, Wonser moved with A.E.F. to Alvarado, Minnesota. A.H.F. stayed in Mott and moved in with Frey in order to finish the school year. In July 2011, Frey moved to modify primary residential responsibility. An interim hearing was held in October 2011. The court issued an interim order granting temporary primary residential responsibility to Frey and parenting time to Wonser. On August 24, 2012, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Frey's motion to modify primary residential responsibility. The district court denied Frey's motion, concluding evidence did not support finding a material change in circumstances to allow modification of primary residential responsibility. Frey appealed the district court's decision. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not clearly err in determining modification was not necessary to serve the best interests of the children and did not abuse its discretion in denying back interim child support. View "Frey v. Frey" on Justia Law

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