Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bradley Dean Jordet and his attorney, Jonathan T. Garaas, appealed orders denying Bradley Jordet's motion to allow him to setoff his spousal support arrearages against Tracy Lyndal Jordet's child support arrearages, and holding Garaas in contempt and fining him $1,000 for intentional disobedience of the district court's earlier order. The Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a setoff, but did abuse its discretion in holding Garaas in contempt. Therefore the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Jordet v. Jordet" on Justia Law

Richie Fonder appealed a judgment that awarded him and Bobbi Fonder equal primary residential responsibility of the parties' three minor children and an order that denied his motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) for reconsideration. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(j) motion and did not clearly err in awarding equal primary residential responsibility to him and Bobbi Fonder. View "Fonder v. Fonder" on Justia Law

Allen Hammeren appealed a divorce judgment that awarded primary residential responsibility and child support to Kelli Hammeren and an order that denied his post-judgment motion to reconsider the effective date of his child support obligation. Because the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility and did not abuse its discretion when awarding child support commencing October 1, 2010, the Court affirmed. View "Hammeren v. Hammeren" on Justia Law

Hau Tran appealed a district court order granting Shannon Krueger's motion to modify primary residential responsibility of their child. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court's decision to modify primary residential responsibility was not clearly erroneous. View "Krueger v. Tran" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Shannon appealed a district court divorce judgment and a post-judgment order. The judgment entered in this case did not adjudicate all claims of the parties, and the court did not certify the judgment as final under Rule 54(b). Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded it did not have jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal. View "Shannon v. Shannon" on Justia Law

Catherine Walstad appealed a judgment awarding her $37,222.90 in her action against Richard Walstad for fraudulently concealing marital property during the parties' 1994 divorce. She argued punitive damages could be recovered from a former spouse who concealed assets in a stipulated property settlement agreement in a prior divorce action and the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to amend her complaint to assert a claim against Richard for punitive damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a district court has equitable authority in an independent action in equity to enjoin enforcement or otherwise grant relief from the earlier divorce judgment on the bases of economic misconduct or fault in that proceeding, but may not award punitive damages in the context of granting relief from the prior divorce judgment. Because the Court was unable to discern whether the district court considered economic fault or misconduct in granting relief from the earlier divorce judgment, it reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Walstad v. Walstad" on Justia Law

Michael Martire appealed and Sandra Hendricksen Martire cross-appealed a divorce judgment and the district court's orders on post-trial motions. Both parties challenged the court's decisions on primary residential responsibility, child support, spousal support and marital property distribution, as well as its disposition of the post-trial motions. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion. View "Martire v. Martire" on Justia Law

Darren Seay appealed a district court judgment granting a divorce to Svetlana Seay and awarding her primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children, A.M.S. and N.A.S. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reverseed in part, concluding: (1) the district court's finding of fact awarding primary residential responsibility of A.M.S. to Svetlana Seay was not clearly erroneous; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Darren Seay to maintain a life insurance policy on himself as security for his support obligations; and (3) the district court erred in ordering that Svetlana Seay could move out of state with the children without further order of the court or consent of Darren Seay. View "Seay v. Seay" on Justia Law

Michiel Nuveen appealed an order that held him in contempt of court for failing to pay a property settlement as ordered in an amended divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held Michiel Nuveen in contempt of court. View "Nuveen v. Nuveen" on Justia Law

J.R. and S.R. appealed the trial court's order dismissing their petition to adopt S.E. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred by dismissing J.R. and S.R.'s petition for adoption, and the Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing under N.D.C.C. 14-15-11. View "Matter of S.E." on Justia Law