Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lance Morris appealed a district court judgment awarding Ceisha Moller primary residential responsibility of the parties' two children. Morris and Moller were not married but lived together from the latter part of 2004 through February 2009. They had two children--C.M., a son, and J.M., a daughter--before separating. Moller also had a daughter, A.G., from a previous relationship; A.G. resided with the parties and their children. After the parties separated, Morris filed suit for primary residential responsibility of the children. Moller answered, seeking primary residential responsibility herself, and she moved for an interim order awarding her temporary primary residential responsibility. A trial was held to determine parental rights and responsibilities. Both parties alleged the other had abused drugs during their relationship. Morris asserted Moller used methamphetamine during her pregnancies with C.M., who was born in 2005, and J.M., who was born in 2007, which Moller denied. Among the witnesses called at trial were the children's pediatrician and a parenting investigator, the latter of whom Morris claimed was biased toward Moller. After analyzing the best interests and welfare of the children under the factors set forth in N.D.C.C. sec. 14-09-06.2(1), the district court found it was in the children's best interests for Moller to have primary residential responsibility and for Morris to have reasonable parenting time. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court's judgment was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed. View "Morris v. Moller" on Justia Law

Marty Haroldson appealed and Heidi Haroldson (now known as Heidi Klein) cross-appealed an amended judgment modifying their stipulated divorce judgment. The district court denied the parties' cross-motions to modify primary residential responsibility of their children, but ruled the parties' stipulated judgment for joint equal residential responsibility violated public policy and was void, because that provision was entered to allow the parties to avoid child support obligations. The court vacated the provision for equal residential responsibility and decided it was in the children's best interests for Klein to have primary residential responsibility. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the parties' cross-motions for modification of residential responsibility authorized the district court to decide primary residential responsibility, but the court's findings on the best interests of the children were inadequate to understand the rationale for the court's decision. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for findings on the best interests of the children. View "Haroldson v. Haroldson" on Justia Law

Lee Paulson's mother and siblings appealed a district court's orders that interpreted his will in favor of his fiancee, Robyn Risovi, denied a motion for reconsideration, and order distribution of his estate. Lee Paulson and Risovi were engaged to be married, with a wedding set for July 18, 2009. On June 26, 2009, Lee Paulson and Risovi executed an antenuptial agreement. The antenuptial agreement contained several terms: an agreement by Lee Paulson to name Risovi as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy, an agreement by Lee Paulson that his will would transfer specific real property to Risovi, and an agreement by Lee Paulson to establish a testamentary trust for the benefit of Risovi's daughter. On the same date, Lee Paulson executed a will. The will established the trust for Risovi's daughter, devised real property to "my wife, Robyn," bequeathed all of his tangible personal property to "my spouse, Robyn," if she survived him, and devised his residuary estate to "my spouse, if my spouse survives me[.]" Article Six of the will outlined the definitions governing the will, and provided, "My spouse's name is Robyn Risovi and all references in this Will to 'my spouse' are to her only." A footnote followed this statement: "This Will has been prepared in anticipation of the upcoming marriage of . . . Lee Paulson and Robyn Risovi set for July 18, 2009." Lee Paulson died on July 15, 2009. The district court declined to read the antenuptial agreement together with the will to determine Lee Paulson's testamentary intent, as encouraged by the Paulson family, because the antenuptial agreement was not incorporated into the will by reference. The Paulson family appealed, and the appeal was remanded to determine if the estate was supervised. After further review, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court's interpretation of the will in favor or Risovi. View "Estate of Paulson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Frison appealed a district court's order that denied his motion to amend its judgment. He sought to modify the residential responsibility of his minor child he had with Defendant-Appellee Stacey Ohlhauser and the associated child support obligation. The parties were never married, and had "W.H.O." in 1998. That year, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking visitation rights. From 1999 to 2011, Plaintiff alleged multiple issues with the care Defendant provided to W.H.O. The district court granted various amendments to its judgment regarding changes in the visitation schedule. The last issue pertained to the presence of a cat in Defendant's home to which Plaintiff claimed W.H.O. was severely allergic. The district court issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion to amend judgment. The district court noted there was contradictory testimony regarding whether W.H.O. was being properly fed, and no independent evidence was presented to corroborate this assertion. The court also noted the cat had been removed from the home several months prior to the hearing, and Defendant testified she cleaned her home to the best of her ability after the cat was removed. The district court found Plaintiff failed to establish a material change in circumstances had occurred. Finding that the district court did not clearly err in its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Frison v. Ohlhauser" on Justia Law

K.H. appealed juvenile court order that extended the placement of his daughter T.H. in the custody and control of Barnes County Social Services and an order that denied his motion to dismiss. On appeal, K.H. argued the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction, applied the wrong standard of proof in finding the child was deprived in 2008, erred in allowing his plea to the allegations of deprivation, the duration of the deprivation proceedings was excessive, and in finding the child continues to be deprived. Finding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of T.H." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Bethany Johnson appealed an amended judgment that modified a California divorce judgment regarding custody of three children and awarded Defendant-Appellee Keith Johnson primary residential responsibility of the parties' seven children. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, holding that she forfeited and abandoned her appeal by disregarding the district court's order and judgment. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Theresa Horsted appealed a district court order, divorce judgment, and amended divorce judgment that awarded Christopher Horsted joint decision-making responsibility and visitation with the parties' daughter and dividing custody investigator fees between the parties. Concluding that the district court did not provide sufficient findings to allow proper appellate review of its decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the district court to make findings regarding the child's best interests. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "Horsted v. Horsted" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Maria Seibold appealed a district court order that denied her motions for a second amended judgment and to hold Defendant-Appellee Paul Leverington in contempt and denied her request for a hearing on her motions. Seibold and Leverington have one child together. In 2006, a judgment was entered finding Leverington is the child's natural father, awarded Seibold sole legal and physical custody of the child, and awarded Leverington visitation. In 2009, Leverington moved to modify custody. After a hearing, the district court entered an order finding there was a material change in circumstances and it was in the child's best interests to modify custody. The court awarded Leverington sole legal and physical custody of the child and awarded Seibold visitation. The court also addressed the parties' parental rights and responsibilities and ordered that both parents have certain rights and duties related to the child, including the right to access and obtain copies of certain records related to the child and the right to contact the child by phone. An amended judgment was entered in September 2009. In 2011, Seibold moved for a second amended judgment, but the district court denied her motions without holding a hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in denying Seibold's motions without providing her with sufficient time to schedule a hearing. The Court reversed the court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Seibold v. Leverington" on Justia Law

Amanda Thompson Wetch (formerly known as Amanda Thompson) appealed an order that denied her motion to amend the second amended judgment granting Scott Thompson sole physical custody of the parties' two minor children during the school year and granting the parties joint physical custody during the summer. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Ms. Thompson Wetch established a prima facie case and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her motion to modify primary residential responsibility of the children. View "Thompson v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Tim Sorenson appealed an amended judgment that awarded primary residential responsibility of his son to Respondent-Appellee Jana Slater, the child's mother. Sorenson and Slater, who were never married, had a child together in May 2008. The child initially lived with Slater, but Sorenson petitioned for custody of the child. In 2008, the child suffered a broken clavicle. The parties disputed whether the injury occurred during a weekend visitation with Sorenson or after the child had been returned to Slater. The emergency room doctor who treated the child filed a report with social services, resulting in investigations into the incident by social services and law enforcement. Sorenson and Slater both submitted to polygraph examinations as part of the criminal investigation. No criminal charges were filed, but social services recommended that Sorenson and Slater attend parenting classes. In 2009, following a two-day trial, the district court issued its order awarding primary custody to Sorenson, with reasonable visitation to Slater. Slater appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment and remanded. A majority of the Court concluded that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous and were "spare and conclusory." On remand, the district court held a supplemental evidentiary hearing, and concluded that it was in the best interests of the child for Slater to have primary residential responsibility. On appeal of this decision to the Supreme Court, Sorenson contended the district court exceeded the scope of the remand when it held the supplemental hearing and allowed Slater to present additional evidence on issues other than the two findings of fact which the Court had expressly found to be clearly erroneous. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in admitting evidence of the polygraph and relying on evidence that was inadmissible when it made its findings of fact. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sorenson v. Slater" on Justia Law