Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

G.K.T. appealed the district court's judgment granting T.L.T.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint against T.L.T. and T.K. for intentional infliction of emotional distress. T.M.T. was born in 1997 to T.L.T. and T.K., the child's biological mother and father. T.L.T. and T.K. did not have a continuing relationship. G.K.T. moved to a house near T.L.T. and they became friends. In 1998, they began to live together with the child, and they married in 2000. G.K.T. adopted the child with T.K.'s consent in 2001. In 2007, G.K.T. and T.L.T. divorced; the court awarded T.L.T. primary residential responsibility and G.K.T. received parenting time. According to G.K.T., the divorce occurred because T.L.T. tried to re-establish T.K.'s relationship with the child. In 2008, T.L.T. began a new relationship with T.K., who began to spend time with the child. G.K.T. believed his relationship with his adopted child deteriorated because of the new relationship between T.L.T. and T.K, whom he sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claimed T.L.T. and T.K. tried to "spoil and ruin [his] father-daughter relationship." G.K.T. asserted, as a result, that he "lost the love and affection of his daughter who is now acting in a hateful manner towards [him by] stating [he] is not her father." G.K.T. asserted that T.L.T. and T.K. acted outrageously, causing him to experience severe emotional distress. G.K.T. claimed to have lost sleep, experienced heartache and stress, and lost his job as a result of his emotional distress. On appeal to the Supreme Court, G.K.T. argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of T.L.T. and T.K. because it did not consider the differences between the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress and the elements of alienation of affections in a parent-child relationship. He also argued the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to recognize intentional infliction of emotional distress as an actionable tort in North Dakota. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that G.K.T.'s his claims against T.L.T. and T.K. did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing the case.

Ricky Becker appealed a divorce judgment that awarded his ex-wife Jill spousal support and established her child support obligation. Ricky and Jill Becker married in 1989 and had four children together. Mr. Becker is a plastic surgeon and has his own medical practice. Mrs. Becker worked part-time as a speech pathologist during the marriage, but there were times when she did not work outside the home and she has not worked outside the home since 2003. The parties owned a spa and hair salon. In 2008, Mr. Becker filed for divorce. The parties agreed Mr. Becker would have primary residential responsibility for the children and later agreed on property and debt distribution. The parties agreed Mrs. Becker would receive ownership of the spa. After a September 2009 hearing on the spousal support and child support, the court awarded Mrs. Becker spousal support of $7,000 per month for June 2010 through December 2012 and $6,000 per month thereafter until her death or remarriage. The court found Mr. Becker's net income was more than three times that of Mrs. Becker's income. Mr. Becker argued on appeal that the district court erred in calculating his income for purposes of deciding whether to award spousal support and calculating Mrs. Becker's child support obligation. He contended the court incorrectly interpreted the financial information and erred finding his income higher than it actually was. Upon review of the records presented at trial, the Supreme Court affirmed the spousal support award but reversed the child support decision. The Court remanded the case for recalculation of Mrs. Becker's child support obligation.

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Varriano appealed an order denying his motion to terminate his child support and spousal support obligations. Mr. Varriano and Defendant-Appellee Denise Varriano were divorced in 2001. A provision in the divorce judgment awarded Mrs. Variano the sum of $4,000 per month, which combined the child support award and spousal support award. As each of the parties' four children reached the age of eighteen, the portion of the award constituting spousal support increased, and the portion of the award constituting child support decreased. The judgment also provided that Mrs. Varriano would no longer be eligible to receive spousal support if she "remarrie[d], is deceased, or cohabit[s] with a significant other." In February 2010, the state support disbursement unit sent a notice of arrears for $181,781.20 against Mr. Varriano. Mr.Varriano filed an "opposition to notice of arrears," claiming he did not owe any arrearage because Mrs. Varriano had violated the divorce judgment's spousal support provisions by cohabiting with a significant other. The district court found Mrs. Varriano had not cohabited with a significant other. On appeal, Mr. Varriano argued the district court erred in finding his former spouse had not cohabited and had not violated a provision in the divorce judgment award. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's findings were "not induced by an erroneous view of the law, there was testimony and evidence by Mrs. Varriano on the record to support the court's findings, and [the Court was] not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." The Court affirmed the district court's decision.