Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Thain Cashmore, individually, as personal representative of the estate of Robert Cashmore, and as trustee of the Robert Cashmore Trust, and Bourck Cashmore, individually and as trustee of the Robert Cashmore Trust, appealed an order that held the personal representative in contempt of court and an order denying the personal representative's N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the contempt order. In 2009, the personal representative moved to approve an "amended" final report and account and proposed distribution which differed significantly from the judgment approving the original final report entered the previous month. The amended final report purported to show estate assets had brought in less money than anticipated in the original final report. The amended final report also requested $2,502.13 in additional personal representative fees, $9,965.20 in additional attorney fees, and $8,000 in additional fees to close the estate. As a result, the amended final report showed the estate with a zero balance instead of the $72,598.56 listed in the original final report, and the estate therefore claimed it would be unable to pay Trudy Cashmore the $6,377.83 approved in the original final report. Undeterred by the Supreme Court's affirmance of the district court's final judgment ordering Trudy Cashmore be paid $6,377.83 within ten days, the personal representative did not pay her. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the personal representative in contempt or in denying the motion to vacate, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Estate of Cashmore" on Justia Law

Jeremy Johnson appealed a district court order that committed him to the custody of the Department of Human Services as a sexually dangerous individual. Johnson argued the district court clearly erred by finding he had a congenital or acquired disorder manifested as a sexual disorder or dysfunction. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of Johnson" on Justia Law

Nelson Whitetail, Sr. appealed an order that found he was a sexually dangerous individual and civilly committed him to the care, custody and control of the Department of Human Services. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in finding the State established by clear and convincing evidence that Whitetail was a sexually dangerous individual. View "Interest of Whitetail" 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

Nancy Finkle appealed an order and judgment quieting title to 1/2 of the mineral interests in certain real property in Mountrail County in Leslie D. Johnson, Carol Johnson, Merlyn H. Johnson, Thea Donna D. Johnson, Delores Albertson and their children. Finkle claimed she owned 1/4 of the mineral interests. The district court held Finkle did not have an interest in the minerals. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Finkle" on Justia Law

Barbara McDermott appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding Kevin Pifer $80,957.07 in damages for unlawful interference with business, and several other orders issued by the district court in connection with these proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in ruling as a matter of law that a purchase option given to Pifer by her mother, Dorothy Bevan, was a valid and enforceable gift. Furthermore, the Court concluded the interference with business claim was properly presented to the jury, the evidence supports the jury verdict and the court did not abuse its discretion in its related rulings and orders. View "Pifer v. McDermott" 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

Solid Comfort, Inc., appealed a judgment that awarded damages against Hatchett Hospitality, Inc., and that dismissed William Glen Hatchett ("Glen Hatchett"), Nu Horizon Renovation, LLC, and Hospitality Depot, LLC, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Under the law applied in the district court, the Supreme Court concluded Solid Comfort established a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Glen Hatchett, Nu Horizon, and Hospitality Depot sufficient to defeat their motion to dismiss. View "Solid Comfort, Inc. v. Hatchett Hospitality, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Cody Borner appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. He argued the criminal information failed to charge him with the purported offense of conspiracy to commit murder. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed and held that the charge of conspiracy to commit murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-04 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) are not cognizable offenses. Accordingly, the Court reverse the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Borner" on Justia Law