Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Wendell Lund appealed a memorandum opinion and order entered after a court trial dismissed his complaint for breach of an implied contract against his parents, Orville and Betty Lund. In March 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed a property distribution in Orville and Betty Lund's divorce action, which determined the parents' 1991 deeding of forty acres of land in Bottineau County to Wendell Lund or Orville Lund was made solely for the purpose of disenfranchising Betty Lund of her property interests and homestead rights and was not a legitimate transaction. The divorce judgment awarded the land to Orville Lund with an offsetting cash award to Betty Lund, and each party received approximately half of the marital estate. In May 2011, Wendell sued his parents, alleging that he entered into an implied contract with them in 1985 to provide labor and supplies, to pay half the real estate taxes, and to provide any other items necessary for the general maintenance of the land, and in exchange, his parents agreed to convey to him their interest in the forty acres of land. He claimed he expended a significant amount of money and labor into the property with the expectation that he would be fairly and reasonably compensated. The Supreme Court concluded the district court's memorandum opinion and order indicated the court intended its decision to be a final disposition of the lawsuit for purposes of treating this as an appeal from a final judgment. The Court also concluded the trial court did not err in determining there was no implied contract between Wendell Lund and his parents. View "Lund v. Lund" on Justia Law

Robert Devine appealed a fifth amended judgment reducing the amount of child support his ex-wife, Rebekah Hennessee, was required to pay each month. Hennessee was medically discharged from the Air Force in April 2013, and filed a motion to amend her child support obligations. Hennessee argued that, as a result of her discharge, her monthly income had decreased, thus warranting recalculation of her child support. Devine argued that Hennessee did not answer his discovery and production requests for information concerning her disability payments or documenting her inability to work. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make a finding that Hennessee was underemployed. "The court ostensibly reasoned that Hennessee's mental and physical health conditions precluded her from further employment. The court found that Hennessee stated she could not hold a job at the current time. The court also noted that Hennessee [was] not looking for another job at this time and that she [was] seeking treatment for her mental health issues. Although Hennessee's income [was] significantly less than what she was earning in the Air Force, the court appeared to reason that the same mental and physical health limitations that forced her Air Force discharge are still impeding Hennessee's ability to earn the same income." View "Devine v. Hennessee" on Justia Law

Leon Francis appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting contact with his wife, Nichole Francis, granting Nichole temporary custody of their minor children and restricting him to supervised visitation with their children. Leon argued that the district court: (1) violated his due process rights by refusing to continue the hearing; (2) erred in allowing a nonlawyer domestic violence advocate to essentially act like a lawyer in court proceedings; (3) failed to make findings of fact supporting its order; (4) erred in excluding evidence he presented; and (5) erred in requiring supervised visitation with his children. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, finding the administrative rules did not allow the district court to permit a domestic violence advocate to represent a party by objecting on their behalf, introducing evidence or examining witnesses. The district court abused its discretion by failing to properly apply Rule 34, section 5, N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Francis v. Francis" on Justia Law

Terrance Schlieve appealed a divorce judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of the children to Julie Schlieve, the mother. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding the district court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility of the children to the mother, but remanded the case for the district court to add missing statutorily mandated parenting-plan provisions and to modify the parenting plan's religious clause. View "Schlieve v. Schlieve" on Justia Law

Lyn Karjalainen (formerly Schroeder) appealed a district court order denying her motion to amend the amended divorce judgment granting Travis Schroeder primary residential responsibility of their children. Karjalainen argued she established a prima facie case for a change in primary residential responsibility and, therefore, was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in determining Karjalainen established a material change of circumstances had occurred but failed to establish a prima facie case that modification was necessary to serve the best interests of the children. View "Schroeder v. Schroeder" on Justia Law

Kurt Datz appealed an amended judgment awarding primary residential responsibility to Helen Dosch; an order denying his motion to vacate, motion to strike, and demand for recusal; and a money judgment awarding attorney's fees. Upon review the Supreme Court reversed the district court's amended judgment, concluding the district court lacked jurisdiction, and remanded the case for sufficiently specific and detailed findings of fact consistent with the Court's mandate in Datz I, (836 N.W.2d 598). The Court reversed the order denying the motion to vacate, affirmed the denial of the demand for recusal, and did not address the denial of the motion to strike. Finally, the Court reversed a money judgment awarding attorney's fees and remanded to the district court for findings regarding whether an award of attorney's fees was appropriate. View "Datz v. Dosch" on Justia Law

Kyle Mackey appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify parenting time and petition for non-parental visitation. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that Mackey failed to establish a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of parenting time. Moreover, the Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that exceptional circumstances did not exist justifying non-parental visitation for Amber Mackey. View "Bredeson v. Mackey" on Justia Law

G.R.'s father, W.R., appealed a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. W.R. argued the juvenile court erred in finding the causes and conditions of the deprivation were likely to continue and finding the termination of his parental rights was necessary to avoid serious physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child. The Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous, and accordingly affirmed that court's order. View "Interest of G.R." on Justia Law

Mother S.L.-C., and father N.P., separately appealed a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to their three children. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court's findings that the children were deprived and had been in foster care more than 450 out of the previous 660 nights were supported by the evidence and were not clearly erroneous. As such, the Court affirmed the termination of both parties' parental rights. View "Interest of R.L.-P." on Justia Law

Branden Schwalk appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not err in holding Schwalk's motion was not supported by the law and the evidence. View "Schwalk v. Schwalk" on Justia Law