Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michelle and Tony Tweten brought an action against COUNTRY Preferred Insurance Company and American National Property and Casualty Company ("ANPAC"), seeking the full amount of underinsured motorist coverage from both insurance companies. The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota certified a question to the North Dakota Supreme Court that called for an interpretation of the Twetens' policies under North Dakota law. The federal court asked whether the Twetens as a divorced couple with separate insurance policies, were foreclosed from recovering up to the full amount of underinsured motorist benefits from their respective policies under the 'other insurance' clause contained in each policy and the statutory anti-stacking provisions of NDCC Ch. 26.1-40 following the death of their son in a car accident. The North Dakota Supreme Court answered the question "Yes." View "Tweten v. COUNTRY Preferred Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Defendant Glen Delorme was charged with two counts of guiding or outfitting without a license in Eddy County after guiding two undercover North Dakota Game and Fish Wardens to multiple hunting sites. The guiding expedition took place both on and off the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Delorme moved to dismiss the charges because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the alleged crime took place on land reserved for the Pembina Band of Chippewa, where his aboriginal rights to hunt, fish, and gather were preserved by an 1863 treaty. The State opposed Delorme's motion, arguing Delorme was charged with guiding or outfitting only on land outside the reservation and subject matter jurisdiction was not in dispute. The district court denied Delorme's motion to dismiss, concluding Delorme failed to show how his offense fell outside of the court's subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Delorme argued the district court erred in denying his motion. Finding no abuse of discretion or error in the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Delorme" on Justia Law

Helen Rebel appealed her judgment of divorce from Rodney Rebel, primary residential responsibility and child support for their then-minor child, and distributing their marital property. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the child support award, but reversed the property distribution. The Court found the district court did not adequately articulate reasons justifying its calculations. Furthermore, the value of the property received by Helen Rebel was less than the value articulated by the district court. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court was unable to determine that the resulting property distribution was equitable. View "Rebel v. Rebel" on Justia Law

In 2003, Terry Ramsey was found guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition for sexually abusing his half-sister's daughter, "Jane." Ramsey appealed the judgment of conviction, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Ramsey applied for post-conviction relief alleging he was entitled to vacation of his criminal judgment based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. Ramsey alleged a letter he received from Jane recanting her trial testimony was newly discovered evidence entitling him to vacation. The trial court found Terry Ramsey failed to show newly discovered evidence existed and denied his claim for post-conviction relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Ramsey's post-conviction relief application based on newly discovered evidence. View "Ramsey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Steven Johnson appealed an order compelling discovery of his federal income tax returns, and a judgment canceling a contract for deed and dismissing his action for specific performance against Sandra Mark, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jeanne Johnson, and Stuart Johnson and Scott Johnson. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in compelling discovery, in canceling the contract for deed, and in dismissing the action for specific performance. View "Johnson v. Mark" on Justia Law

Southeastern Shelter Corporation appealed a district court order that held daily monetary sanctions imposed on Alphild Herzig under 2006 contempt orders abated upon her death. The trial court held that only the $5,000 awarded for attorney's fees in its June 2006 order was to compensate Southeastern and survived Herzig's death and that none of the daily sanctions imposed in its July 2006 order were to compensate Southeastern and therefore did not survive Herzig's death. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court answered the specific question the Court remanded, it affirmed the order in the underlying cases and directed the 2008 case be remanded for entry of judgment. View "Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig" on Justia Law

Micah Green appealed a fourth amended judgment and an order denying her post-judgment motions to amend the trial court's findings, to make additional findings, for a new trial, and for a stay of the judgment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor children to the father, Christopher Morrissey; that the court did not misapply the law in admitting certain evidence; and that the court did not clearly err in its award of parenting time to Green. View "Interest of N.C.M., D.C.M., and J.J.M." on Justia Law

Neil Bartelson appeals from a district court order denying his petition to remove Guardian and Protective Services ("GAPS") as the personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Bartelson, an order denying his motion to vacate the order denying his petition and an order awarding attorney's fees. Ralph Bartelson had four children--Jean Valer, Jane Haught, Bartelson and Diane Fischer. In 2008, the district court approved a settlement agreement appointing Valer as guardian and GAPS as conservator. Ralph Bartelson died August 23, 2008, and GAPS was appointed the personal representative of the estate. Bartelson and Fischer alleged Valer and Haught misappropriated Ralph Bartelson's funds. GAPS did not pursue a misappropriation claim against Valer and Haught. The district court ordered it did not have jurisdiction over claims of misappropriation occurring before the court's 2008 appointment of a guardian and conservator for Ralph Bartelson. Bartelson and Fischer appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, holding the court erred in determining it did not have jurisdiction over the misappropriation claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings and for the court to determine whether Bartelson and Fischer had standing to assert their misappropriation claims when they did not allege that GAPS breached its fiduciary duty by not filing a misappropriation claim against Valer and Haught. On remand, Bartelson filed a petition to be appointed as the successor personal representative. The district court ruled neither Bartelson nor Fischer's estate had standing to assert their misappropriation claims. The court denied a motion to reconsider. Bartelson then petitioned to remove GAPS as personal representative of Ralph Bartelson's estate, arguing GAPS breached its fiduciary duty by failing to pursue collection of assets belonging to the estate and failing to bring an action against Valer and Haught for misappropriation, but did not hold a hearing on that motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying Bartelson's petition for removal of GAPS as the personal representative without conducting a hearing. The case was remanded for a hearing on the petition. View "Estate of Bartelson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Allen Davenport appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") decision to terminate benefits on his claim for treatment of his cervical spine and left shoulder and denying his claims for benefits for treatment of his anxiety and depression and lower back condition. He argued his anxiety and depression and his cervical spine, left shoulder and back conditions were "compensable injuries." Upon further review, the Supreme Court concluded Davenport failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that work incidents subject to this claim substantially accelerated the progression of, or substantially worsened the severity of, his existing conditions and that his physical injury caused at least 50 percent of his anxiety and depression. View "Davenport v. WSI" on Justia Law

Petitioner Ounjaniese Brown appealed a district court judgment that denied her request for review of Burleigh County Housing Authority's ("BCHA") decision to terminate her housing assistance benefits. Brown was a recipient of benefits under a federal housing assistance program. In 2012, BCHA terminated Brown's housing assistance benefits. Brown filed a notice of appeal and specification of error in district court, stating she was appealing BCHA's decision to terminate her housing assistance. Brown alleged BCHA's decision violated her constitutional rights, she did not receive a fair hearing, and BCHA failed to consider evidence she presented. BCHA filed a motion to dismiss, arguing it was not an agency for purposes of the Administrative Agencies Practices Act ("AAPA") and therefore the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and vacated the judgment and orders. View "Brown v. Burleigh County Housing Authority" on Justia Law