Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Brandon Charvat appealed a district court order denying his motion to amend a divorce judgment to modify primary residential responsibility of the parties' child. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding Brandon Charvat established a prima facie case justifying modification and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. View "Charvat v. Charvat" on Justia Law

Kurt Datz appealed a divorce judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children to Helen Dosch, distributing the marital estate after finding economic and non-economic fault by Datz and ordering Datz to pay child support and one-half of the cost of hiring a nanny for the children. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed on primary residential responsibility, affirmed the remainder of the judgment and remanded. Except for the brief reference to the domestic violence factor, the district court never identified any of the best interest factors in its findings. Rather, the court's findings appear to be a summarization of evidence supporting Dosch's position. At the end of the summarization, with no discussion of individual factors or explanation of which factors favored which party, the trial court concluded that "[t]he court has considered N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2" and "[t]he factors have been addressed." View "Datz v. Dosch" on Justia Law

Roy Jensen appeals a district court order denying his motion to amend a divorce judgment to modify primary residential responsibility for the parties' child. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding Jensen established a prima facie case for modification and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. View "Jensen v. Jensen" on Justia Law

Deborah Schiff appealed a district court judgment denying her spousal support. The district court noted the parties agreed to an equal split of the marital estate but disputed some values and which party should receive particular assets. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's decision was based on sufficient evidence and was not clearly erroneous. View "Schiff v. Schiff" on Justia Law