Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Marilyn Sateren appealed an order that denied reallocation of marital property in a stipulated divorce case, and Lorne Sateren moved to dismiss the appeal. Upon review of the trial court record and the arguments the parties made on appeal, the Supreme Court denied Lorne Sateren's motion to dismiss because Marilyn Sateren did not waive her right to appeal by unconditionally, voluntarily and consciously accepting a substantial benefit under the divorce judgment. The Court reversed the order denying reallocation of marital property and remanded the case for the district court to adequately explain the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its decision to deny reallocation. View "Sateren v. Sateren" on Justia Law

Vincente Chacano appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of attempted murder. Because the trial court did not err in admitting an audio recording of the courtroom scuffle, sufficient evidence existed to sustain the convictions, and the prosecutor's improper statement in closing argument did not reach the level of obvious error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Chacano" on Justia Law

Alois Vetter appealed a district court's judgment entered after he was convicted by jury of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. On appeal, Vetter argued a vehicle is not a dangerous weapon under the plain language of N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04(6). Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a vehicle may be considered a dangerous weapon. View "North Dakota v. Vetter" on Justia Law

Dawn Kirby appealed a district court order that denied her motion to modify primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Kirby made a prima facie case for modification, and accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "Sweeney v. Kirby" on Justia Law

Wendell Lund appealed a district court order dismissing his action against his mother Betty Lund for lack of personal jurisdiction. Wendell is the son of Orville and Betty Lund. Orville and Betty Lund owned real property in Bottineau County. Wendell claimed that in 1985 he entered into an implied contract with his parents whereby he agreed to provide certain labor and supplies to maintain the real property and to pay half of the real estate taxes, and that in exchange his parents agreed to convey the property to him. In 1991, Orville and Betty signed a deed purporting to convey their interest in the property to Orville and Wendell. When Orville and Betty divorced in 2010, the trial court found the 1991 deed was not a legitimate transaction, but rather had been an attempt to deprive Betty of her interest in the property and her homestead rights. The court included the entire value of the real property in the marital estate and awarded it to Orville. Betty received other offsetting property, and each party ultimately received approximately one-half of the marital estate. Betty Lund moved to Arizona in 2010. Since then, she held an Arizona driver's license, registered her vehicle in Arizona and where she registered to vote. In 2011, Wendell brought this action against his parents alleging they failed to comply with the 1985 implied contract. He sought damages and transfer of the real property to him. Wendell claimed that Betty could not be located for service of process, so service was made by publication. Betty entered a special appearance through her attorney and moved to dismiss the action against her, arguing she was a permanent resident of Arizona and the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The district court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over Betty and subsequently dismissed Wendell's claims against both of his parents, to which Wendell appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Betty Lund resided in North Dakota, owned real property, and allegedly entered into a contract regarding her property in North Dakota. Those contacts were sufficient under Rule 4(b)(2) to assert personal jurisdiction over her for the transactions related to those activities, and she was not immune from suit because she left. The Court concluded the district court erred in concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over Betty Lund. View "Lund v. Lund" on Justia Law

William and Carla Trotter and Kevin and Cheryl Buehner appealed a judgment which declared "Trotter Road" a public road, and that awarded Ralph and Patricia Howard damages. Since 1984, the Howards have used Trotter Road to access their farmland. In 1986 or 1987, Gene Buehner built a dam along Trotter Road because the road had frequently been washed away by high water traveling through the ravine. In the fall of 2009, the road had become increasingly narrow due to high water. The width of the road made it impossible for the Howards to access their farmland with heavy farm equipment, which had previously not been a problem. Also in the fall of 2009, the Trotters erected steel poles across Trotter Road further preventing the Howards from accessing their farmland. In 2011, the Howards sued the Trotters and Buehners seeking injunctive relief and money damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not clearly err in finding Trotter Road was a public road, and in awarding the Howards damages. View "Howard v. Trotter" on Justia Law

B.N. appealed juvenile court orders terminating his parental rights to J.N. and J.N. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the juvenile court failed to make a required finding of fact and the court's findings did not adequately explain the basis for its decision. View "Interest of J.N." on Justia Law

K.H. appealed a juvenile court permanency order extending placement of his daughter, T.H., in the custody and control of Barnes County Social Services until June 1, 2012. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed because the hearing to extend the permanency order was not held before the prior permanency order expired as required under N.D.C.C. section 27-20-36. View "Interest of T.H." on Justia Law

M.D. appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. M.D. argued the court's finding that he remain a sexually dangerous individual was clearly erroneous and the court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion for a continuance. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no abuse of the district court's discretion and affirmed its decision. View "Matter of M.D." on Justia Law

MayPort Farmers Co-Op appealed the judgment entered after trial and the district court's order denying MayPort's motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law and to amend judgment. MayPort sued St. Hilaire Seed Co., Inc., alleging St. Hilaire owed MayPort money for storage of edible beans St. Hilaire purchased from MayPort. The district court concluded "usage of trade" applied as a gap-filler and found industry custom and standards rendered storage charges inappropriate because MayPort's inability to perform caused the need for storage. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying MayPort's motion to amend. View "MayPort Farmers Co-Op v. St. Hilaire Seed Company, Inc." on Justia Law