Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Marilyn Sateren appealed an order that denied reallocation of marital property in a stipulated divorce case, and Lorne Sateren moved to dismiss the appeal. Upon review of the trial court record and the arguments the parties made on appeal, the Supreme Court denied Lorne Sateren's motion to dismiss because Marilyn Sateren did not waive her right to appeal by unconditionally, voluntarily and consciously accepting a substantial benefit under the divorce judgment. The Court reversed the order denying reallocation of marital property and remanded the case for the district court to adequately explain the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its decision to deny reallocation. View "Sateren v. Sateren" on Justia Law

Dawn Kirby appealed a district court order that denied her motion to modify primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Kirby made a prima facie case for modification, and accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "Sweeney v. Kirby" on Justia Law

Wendell Lund appealed a district court order dismissing his action against his mother Betty Lund for lack of personal jurisdiction. Wendell is the son of Orville and Betty Lund. Orville and Betty Lund owned real property in Bottineau County. Wendell claimed that in 1985 he entered into an implied contract with his parents whereby he agreed to provide certain labor and supplies to maintain the real property and to pay half of the real estate taxes, and that in exchange his parents agreed to convey the property to him. In 1991, Orville and Betty signed a deed purporting to convey their interest in the property to Orville and Wendell. When Orville and Betty divorced in 2010, the trial court found the 1991 deed was not a legitimate transaction, but rather had been an attempt to deprive Betty of her interest in the property and her homestead rights. The court included the entire value of the real property in the marital estate and awarded it to Orville. Betty received other offsetting property, and each party ultimately received approximately one-half of the marital estate. Betty Lund moved to Arizona in 2010. Since then, she held an Arizona driver's license, registered her vehicle in Arizona and where she registered to vote. In 2011, Wendell brought this action against his parents alleging they failed to comply with the 1985 implied contract. He sought damages and transfer of the real property to him. Wendell claimed that Betty could not be located for service of process, so service was made by publication. Betty entered a special appearance through her attorney and moved to dismiss the action against her, arguing she was a permanent resident of Arizona and the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The district court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over Betty and subsequently dismissed Wendell's claims against both of his parents, to which Wendell appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Betty Lund resided in North Dakota, owned real property, and allegedly entered into a contract regarding her property in North Dakota. Those contacts were sufficient under Rule 4(b)(2) to assert personal jurisdiction over her for the transactions related to those activities, and she was not immune from suit because she left. The Court concluded the district court erred in concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over Betty Lund. View "Lund v. Lund" on Justia Law

B.N. appealed juvenile court orders terminating his parental rights to J.N. and J.N. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the juvenile court failed to make a required finding of fact and the court's findings did not adequately explain the basis for its decision. View "Interest of J.N." on Justia Law

K.H. appealed a juvenile court permanency order extending placement of his daughter, T.H., in the custody and control of Barnes County Social Services until June 1, 2012. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed because the hearing to extend the permanency order was not held before the prior permanency order expired as required under N.D.C.C. section 27-20-36. View "Interest of T.H." on Justia Law

Michiel Nuveen appealed a district court judgment deviating upward from the Child Support Guidelines and ordering him to pay $3,620.00 per month in child support. On appeal he argued the district court made a mathematical error. Finding that the district court did not misapply the statutory guidelines in calculating child support, nor did it abuse its discretion in deviating from those guidelines. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Nuveen v. Nuveen" on Justia Law

Child S.B., is an orphan. Her mother and presumed father are dead. No one claimed custody through either parent. K.F. and M.F. physically had the child and claimed to be "private foster parents" even though they were not related to the child and appeared to have no legal authority for their possession. J.H. "gave" them the child. J.H. is not related to S.B., but thought he might be "technically the guardian" even though the record reflected no appointment as a guardian. D.E. believed he was the biological father, and sued, seeking to establish his paternity of S.B. D.E. named K.F. and M.F. as defendants, apparently because they physically had the child. K.F. and M.F. objected to the paternity action going forward, and the district court dismissed the case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court should have appointed a guardian ad litem for the child and that K.F. and M.F. had no right to challenge the paternity action as they did. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "D.E. v. K.F." on Justia Law

Christina Deyle appealed the district court judgment granting Eric Deyle primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of primary residential responsibility to Eric Deyle. However, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings because the district court failed to adequately explain its denial of summer parenting time, interim child support and attorney fees. View "Deyle v. Deyle" on Justia Law

William Falconer appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from coming within 500 feet of Bridget Niska for three years, an order granting Niska temporary custody of the parties' minor child, and a mandate ordering visitation exchanges for the child through Falconer's mother. Falconer claimed that the court erred in issuing a domestic violence protection order based on an incident of domestic violence that occurred more than seven years ago, that he acted in self-defense in the incident seven years ago, and that Niska used the process for procuring a protection order to thwart his visitation with the parties' minor child and as a means to punish him for the parties' failing relationship. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the judicial referee's findings were insufficient to understand the basis for the referee's decision, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Niska v. Falconer" on Justia Law

Mohamed Keita appealed a divorce judgment that awarded Jennifer Keita primary residential responsibility for the parties' minor child, granted Mohamed Keita supervised parenting time for the child, denied Mohamed Keita joint decision-making authority for the child, distributed the parties' marital property, awarded Jennifer Keita attorney fees, and reserved jurisdiction for a future spousal support award. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in awarding of attorney fees and distributing property, but that the court erred in awarding supervised parenting time, child support, and in reserving jurisdiction for future spousal support. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Keita v. Keita" on Justia Law