Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Catherine Walstad appealed a judgment awarding her $37,222.90 in her action against Richard Walstad for fraudulently concealing marital property during the parties' 1994 divorce. She argued punitive damages could be recovered from a former spouse who concealed assets in a stipulated property settlement agreement in a prior divorce action and the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to amend her complaint to assert a claim against Richard for punitive damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a district court has equitable authority in an independent action in equity to enjoin enforcement or otherwise grant relief from the earlier divorce judgment on the bases of economic misconduct or fault in that proceeding, but may not award punitive damages in the context of granting relief from the prior divorce judgment. Because the Court was unable to discern whether the district court considered economic fault or misconduct in granting relief from the earlier divorce judgment, it reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Walstad v. Walstad" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Sharon Wheeler appealed a judgment requiring her to pay assessments to Defendant Southport Seven Planned Unit Development ("Southport"). Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err finding Southport had authority to impose assessments against Wheeler as a property owner in Southport, the court did not err finding the amount Wheeler owed Southport and the court did not err in ordering Wheeler to pay Southport costs. View "Wheeler v. Southport Seven Planned Unit Dev." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant William Scott Gagnon III appealed a judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to manufacturing marijuana. He reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered in his residence. Defendant argued the evidence was unconstitutionally seized during an illegal warrantless search of his home. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the search was indeed illegal, reversed the judgment, and remanded the case to allow Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Gagnon" on Justia Law

Michael Martire appealed and Sandra Hendricksen Martire cross-appealed a divorce judgment and the district court's orders on post-trial motions. Both parties challenged the court's decisions on primary residential responsibility, child support, spousal support and marital property distribution, as well as its disposition of the post-trial motions. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion. View "Martire v. Martire" on Justia Law

Defendant Jessica Burkhardt appealed a district court judgment that awarded damages to Plaintiff Jon Kohanowski for the unpaid balance of a loan and ordered Defendant to pay costs and attorney fees. Defendant was engaged to marry Shaun Kohanowski, Plaintiff's brother. In 2006, Shaun and Defendant were planning to purchase a home. Shaun Kohanowski contacted Jon Kohanowski, who agreed to lend the couple money to help buy the home. Jon Kohanowski alleged that Defendant was in the room and overheard Shaun's side of the telephone conversation during which the brothers discussed the loan. Plaintiff contended the terms of the loan required Defendant and Shaun to repay the loan. Plaintiff wired $675 to Shaun and Defendant's bank to start the appraisal process and sent a check for $9,325 payable to Shaun and Defendant. Only Shaun endorsed the check, and he deposited the proceeds into a joint checking account he shared with Defendant. In early 2007, Defendant signed two checks for $215 each drawn on the joint account and payable to Plaintiff. Defendant and Shaun subsequently called off their engagement, and no further payments were made on the loan. In September 2010, Shaun e-mailed a "Letter of Intent" to Plaintiff acknowledging the debt, promising to pay one-half of the remaining debt with interest, and promising to assist Plaintiff in collecting the remaining one-half of the debt from Defendant. In October 2010, Plaintiff sued Defendant in small claims court for one-half of the remaining debt and a portion of the travel costs he had allegedly incurred attempting to collect the debt. Defendant removed the action to district court and demanded a jury trial. After a trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $6,641.29, one-half of the remaining debt plus interest. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or relief from the judgment. The district court impliedly denied Defendant's motions, instead entering an order awarding Plaintiff costs and attorney fees. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the alleged oral loan agreement was barred by the statute of frauds. View "Kohanowski v. Burkhardt" on Justia Law

Joe Waldock appealed the grant of summary judgment quieting title to 25 percent of the mineral interests under a tract of land in Mountrail County in the successors in interest of the Estate of William C. Edwardson. Waldock argued the district court erred in deciding a 1954 administrator's deed from Edwardson's Estate to Waldock's predecessor in interest, Clark Van Horn, was equivalent to a quitclaim deed and in deciding the rule for interpreting mineral conveyances from "Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Co.," (144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940)), was not applicable to the administrator's deed. ThUpon review, the Supreme Court concluded the legal effect of the plain language of the administrator's deed conveyed 25 percent of the mineral interests to Waldock's predecessor in interest and reserved 25 percent of the mineral interests to Edwardson's Estate. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Waldock v. Amber Harvest Corporation" on Justia Law

Gerald Middleton appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child and corruption of a minor. Middleton argued the district court erred in denying his motion to release the victim's medical records and the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Middleton failed to properly preserve the issues he raised on appeal. View "North Dakota v. Middleton" on Justia Law

Darren Seay appealed a district court judgment granting a divorce to Svetlana Seay and awarding her primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children, A.M.S. and N.A.S. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reverseed in part, concluding: (1) the district court's finding of fact awarding primary residential responsibility of A.M.S. to Svetlana Seay was not clearly erroneous; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Darren Seay to maintain a life insurance policy on himself as security for his support obligations; and (3) the district court erred in ordering that Svetlana Seay could move out of state with the children without further order of the court or consent of Darren Seay. View "Seay v. Seay" on Justia Law

Michiel Nuveen appealed an order that held him in contempt of court for failing to pay a property settlement as ordered in an amended divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held Michiel Nuveen in contempt of court. View "Nuveen v. Nuveen" on Justia Law

The successors to the interests of eight siblings of John Q. Nichols ("Goughnour defendants") appealed the grant of summary judgment in a quiet title action by the successors to the interests of John Q. Nichols ("Nichols plaintiffs") to determine ownership of 1/2 of the mineral interests in a parcel of land in Mountrail County. The Goughnour defendants claimed they collectively owned 1/4 of the mineral interests in the land and the Nichols plaintiffs owned 1/4 of the mineral interests. The district court decided the Goughnour defendants collectively owned 1/9 of the mineral interests in the land and the Nichols plaintiffs owned 7/18 of the mineral interests. After review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nichols v. Goughnor" on Justia Law