Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Anna Holmes appealed a district court order denying an evidentiary hearing on her motion for change of custody. Because the Supreme Court concluded Holmes met her burden of establishing a prima facie case justifying modification, it reversed the district court order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "Wald v. Holmes" on Justia Law

C.G. appealed a juvenile court judgment terminating his parental rights and directing him to pay child support for his son, C.N. C.G. argued that the juvenile court was clearly erroneous in finding C.N. was a deprived child and that aggravated circumstances warrant termination. C.G. also argued the juvenile court erred in ordering C.G. to pay child support despite terminating his parental rights. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment terminating the parental rights of C.G. and ordering him to provide child support. View "Interest of C.N." on Justia Law

The biological father of a minor child appealed an order terminating his parental rights to the child and an order granting a petition for adoption of the child. The father argued he did not fail to communicate with and fail to manifest a significant parental interest in his child without justifiable cause when, while he was incarcerated, the biological mother obtained a protection order against him, returned all correspondence and packages sent by him or his family, refused all phone or electronic communications from his family, and refused any visitation between the child and him or any of his family. The Supreme Court affirmed the orders terminating the biological father's parental rights and granting the adoption. View "Adoption of I.R.R." on Justia Law

Wayne Kukla appealed an amended judgment entered after the district court granted Roberta ("Bobbi") Marie Kukla's motion to amend and vacate a 2004 divorce judgment. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in granting Bobbi Kukla's motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Therefore the amended judgment was reversed and the 2004 divorce judgment was reinstated. View "Kukla v. Kukla" on Justia Law

Rick Rustad appealed a district court judgment granting him a divorce from Svetlana Rustad, awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor child to Svetlana Rustad, distributing their marital property, and awarding Svetlana Rustad rehabilitative spousal support. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirme the portion of the judgment awarding spousal support and distributing the marital property, but reversed and remanded on primary residential responsibility. View "Rustad v. Rustad" on Justia Law

Catherine Walstad appealed a district court memorandum opinion and order that reaffirmed its previous judgment requiring Richard Walstad to pay her $37,222.90 to equalize a property distribution after he intentionally concealed marital assets during the parties' 1994 divorce. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not follow its mandate on remand, the district court's property distribution was clearly erroneous, and the district court abused its discretion in not awarding attorney fees. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Walstad v. Walstad" on Justia Law

Nathan Holte appealed a district court judgment that granted a divorce from Dawn Holte, distributed their property, and awarded Dawn spousal support. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court affirmed the spousal support award and but reversed the property distribution. View "Holte v. Holte" on Justia Law

Timothy Jenkins appealed a district court order that denied his motion to amend an amended divorce judgment to modify primary residential responsibility of the parties' children. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Jenkins' affidavit established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to change residential responsibility. Accordingly the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Wendy Rebel and Jesse Rebel were divorced in 2009 and have two minor children. In 2011, Jesse Rebel married Brandi Rebel. Jesse Rebel and Brandi Rebel appealed district court orders granting Wendy Rebel two-year disorderly conduct restraining orders against them. Wendy Rebel's petitions alleged, in part, an incident occurring on in 2012, after a school program, in which Brandi purportedly used vulgar and abusive language toward Wendy. Furthermore, Wendy alleged a confrontation occurring that same month, in which the Rebels approached Wendy in her car parked in front of the school, where she was picking up her son, and began shouting at her and calling her vulgar and abusive names. Wendy asserted the Rebels confronted her over alleged DNA evidence purportedly showing Jesse Rebel was not the father of their children. Wendy Rebel's petitions asserted that at the time she was frightened and called the police. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the disorderly conduct restraining orders against the Rebels. View "Rebel v. Rebel" on Justia Law

Maria Seibold appealed a second amended judgment entered after the district court denied her motion to change primary residential responsibility of their minor child from Paul Leverington to her. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in denying Seibold's motion to modify primary residential responsibility and did not clearly err in its award of parenting time. View "Seibold v. Leverington" on Justia Law