Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Leslie Miller appealed an order that denied his motion to change primary residential responsibility for his son without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in ruling Miller failed to establish a prima facie case justifying the change. View "Miller v. Miller" on Justia Law

EOG Resources, Inc. appealed a district court judgment that granted Lario Oil & Gas Co.'s motion for summary judgment and quieted title of an oil and gas leasehold estate in Lario's favor. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court erred by deciding EOG did not lease the rights to the oil and gas interests. View "Lario Oil & Gas Co. v. EOG Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Randy Kyllo, individually and as a partner of Tri-K Farms, appealed a district court order that denied his claim against Shawn Knudson for usurpation of a partnership opportunity. In 1994, Kyllo and Shawn Knudson formed a general partnership, Tri-K Farms. Knudson and Kyllo did not execute a written partnership agreement, but they operated Tri-K Farms as equals. One of the parcels of land Tri-K Farms leased, Knudson separately purchased by contract for deed using some of the partnership's funds. In March 2006, Knudson and Kyllo met with an attorney about dissolving the partnership. The attorney prepared a written partnership dissolution agreement to dissolve the partnership and distribute the partnership assets, but neither party signed. A dispute arose over the sale of the purchased parcel, ultimately ending in a judgment against Kyllo. The district court found Kyllo failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Knudson improperly usurped a partnership opportunity because the partnership never intended to purchase the property; (2) owning the land was not within the scope of the partnership's business; (3) the partnership was allowed to continue to farm the land after the sale; (4) and the income from the lease went to the partnership. Finding that the district court's decision was not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Knudson v. Kyllo" on Justia Law

In early 2013, S.R.B.'s father filed a petition for his involuntary commitment. The petition alleged S.R.B. was mentally ill and there was a reasonable expectation of a serious risk of harm if left untreated. The petition alleged that S.R.B. called a nearby school looking for his daughter, wife, and lover, of which he had none. The petition also alleged S.R.B.'s neighbor saw S.R.B. "walking around his house this morning with nothing on but his underwear shorts." The father requested emergency treatment, noting S.R.B. was not taking his medication. S.R.B. appealed the trial court's order for hospitalization and treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for ninety days. The Supreme Court held the trial court's findings were insufficient to support the trial court's order, and remanded for expedited findings. On remand, the trial court entered additional findings and issued an amended order. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence that supported the order for hospitalization and treatment. View "Interest of S.R.B." on Justia Law

Erin (Muxlow) Kartes appealed an amended divorce judgment awarding Jorey Kartes primary residential responsibility for the parties' two children. Finding that a party cannot challenge a district court's conclusion that a prima facie case has been established warranting an evidentiary hearing on a change of primary residential responsibility on appeal, that the district court's findings that Muxlow's actions were a persistent and willful denial or interference with Kartes's parenting time, and that the best interests of the children required a change of primary residential responsibility to Kartes were not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kartes v. Kartes" on Justia Law

Gardell Frey appealed a district court order that denied his motion to modify primary residential responsibility for his children. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding a material change occurred as a matter of law. The Court remanded the case back to the district court to find whether modification was necessary to serve the best interests of the children under the relevant statutory factors. View "Frey v. Frey" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI) appealed a district court's judgment reversing its denial of worker's compensation benefits to claimant Brenda Albright. Albright submitted her claim to WSI for a work-related back injury. Albright had a history of back problems; an independent medical records review of Albright's case showed she had "well-documented multilevel degenerative disk pathology" which contributed to the claim at issue here. The ALJ hearing Albright's case concluded her injury was not the result of a single incident, and denied her application for benefits. Finding that the evidence in the record supported the ALJ's decision to deny Albright's application for benefits, the Supreme Court reversed the district court, affirmed the ALJ and reinstated WSI's order denying benefits. View "Albright v. ND Workforce Safety & Ins" on Justia Law

William and Patricia Clairmont appealed a judgment interpreting two trusts they created for the benefit of their grandson, Matthew Larson, and dismissing the Clairmonts' petition to reform the trusts. The Clairmonts argued the district court erred in denying their petition to reform the trusts because there was clear and convincing evidence of a mistake of law that affected their intent and the terms of the trusts. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court misapplied the law construing trusts involving a mistake of law and the correct application of the law to the court's findings required reformation of the trusts. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for reformation of the trusts. View "In re Matthew Larson Trust Agreement" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of April 11, 2008, Jeremy Rustad and Heidi Hanna were killed in a plane crash in McLean County. Rustad was piloting his Cessna aircraft and Hanna was a passenger when the plane crashed. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable causes of the accident were due to pilot error and pilot impairment due to alcohol. The estate published a notice to creditors of Rustad for three successive weeks beginning May 22, 2008, informing them they had three months to file claims. On September 24, 2008, Olson, as "co-personal representative of the estate of Heidi Hanna, deceased, caretaker of [B.H.], a minor, and temporary guardian of [B.H.], a minor," filed a claim against the estate asserting the estate was indebted to Hanna's estate and to Hanna's children. The estate "disallowed" Olson's claim. In early 2009, Olson filed this wrongful death and survival action against the estate. The estate moved for summary judgment dismissing the action. The estate argued Olson's claims were barred because she did not serve the personal representative in that capacity and the failure to present her claims in the probate action made them res judicata. The estate also argued Olson could not show Hanna was injured before Rustad died, and therefore, both the wrongful death and survivor claims were barred under the nonclaim provisions of the Probate Code. The district court rejected the estate's arguments that service of process was insufficient and that the action was barred by res judicata. The court concluded Olson presented no evidence to show Hanna died before Rustad, and dismissed the wrongful death and survival actions because they were barred by the nonclaim provisions of the Probate Code. The district court further noted Rustad had an aircraft insurance policy and the nonclaim provisions did not prevent Olson from recovering to the extent of insurance coverage available for the accident. The court ruled the language in the insurance policy unambiguously limited coverage under the circumstances to $103,000, and a judgment was entered in favor of Olson for $103,000. The Estate appealed; the Supreme Court, after review of the trial court record, affirmed. View "Olson v. Estate of Rustad" on Justia Law

Carol Johnson appealed the denial of her motions for summary judgment, to amend her complaint, and the grant of the defendants' summary judgment motions for various claims related to her involuntary hospitalization. Johnson also appealed an order denying her motion for reconsideration and an order denying her objections to the district court's award of costs and disbursements to the defendants. In 2009, Johnson, a formerly licensed attorney in California appearing pro se, sued Dr. Natalya Bronson, Registered Nurse B.R. Clark, Prairie St. John's Hospital, John Does 1-100, Jane Does 1-100 (collectively "Medical Defendants"), and Attorney Steven Mottinger after being involuntarily hospitalized. Her claims against the Medical Defendants essentially asserted that because "[a]t all material times, [she] was without mental defect or disease of any kind whatsoever," the Medical Defendants had no authority to involuntarily commit her. Johnson's claims against Mottinger asserted that he committed legal malpractice in his representation of Johnson and was also liable for false imprisonment and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Johnson alleged that, as a result of Mottinger and the Medical Defendants' conduct, she was subjected to numerous electronic hazards and suffered "severe and serious injuries and monetary damages." Johnson sought compensatory damages for costs related to medical care and treatment, pain and suffering, and the "loss of the enjoyment of life." Johnson sought damages in excess of $10,000,000 for lost wages and reduced earning capacity, asserting her ability to reenter the legal profession had been destroyed due to the stigma of being civilly committed. Finding no reason to overturn the trial court's decisions to deny Johnson's motions, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Johnson v. Bronson" on Justia Law