Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Trevor Mertz appealed a district court criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of burglary. Defendant argued that: (1) after the jury retired for deliberation, the district court erred by providing an incorrect and misleading answer to the jury's request for instruction on the law; and (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the conviction. Defendant was charged with burglary for entering his ex-girlfriend's home and taking a television. Defendant was tried by a jury and testified at trial. Defendant admitted to entering the residence and taking the television but claimed the television did not belong to his ex-girlfriend. Defendant testified the television was his and he loaned it to his ex-girlfriend for their child's use. Two witnesses called by the State testified the television belonged to Defendant's ex-girlfriend. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Mertz" on Justia Law

Defendant Helen Cupido appealed a trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of Recovery Resources, LLC. Helen and David Cupido married in January 1993. In March 2010, David Cupido incurred medical expenses at St. Alexius Medical Center. The parties divorced in April 2011. Under the divorce judgment, the trial court ordered David Cupido responsible for payment of the debt owed to St. Alexius Medical Center. The divorce judgment also required Helen and David to indemnify one another from any and all collection activities, which may arise regarding debts awarded to a party. Recovery Resources, LLC, a collection company, sued Helen and David for $9,494.61 owed to St. Alexius Medical Center for medical care provided to David while he and Helen were married and living together. David did not answer Recovery Resources' claim and a default judgment was entered against him. Helen answered denying liability and cross-claimed for indemnity against David. Helen then moved for summary judgment arguing she was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because the divorce judgment allocated the debt to David. Recovery Resources resisted and moved for summary judgment arguing it was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because Helen was liable for the debt. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Recovery Resources. On appeal, Helen contended the trial court erred: (1) by concluding she is jointly and severally liable for the debt David incurred, and (2) by failing to dismiss her from the lawsuit based on the indemnification language in the divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the indemnification language in the divorce judgment between Helen and David Cupido did not affect Recovery Resources' statutory right to recover the debt. Accordingly the trial court did not err in failing to dismiss Helen from the collection action. View "Recovery Resources, LLC v. Cupido" on Justia Law

Jordan Michael Engelhardt appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from having contact with Sara J. Rinas for twenty years. Engelhardt and Rinas, who were never married, have a minor child together. In 2011, after the relationship ended, Rinas filed a petition for protective relief from Engelhardt. Rinas alleged Engelhardt had been physically abusive on multiple occasions, one of which occurred while Engelhardt was holding their child. Rinas also alleged Engelhardt had threatened to kill her and she received threatening text messages from him. The district court granted a temporary domestic violence protection order and scheduled a hearing. In October 2011, Engelhardt filed a parenting time action, but no parenting time order had been issued. Despite Engelhardt's testimony at the hearing, he did not challenge the finding of domestic violence on appeal. Nor did he challenge the interpretation of the domestic violence protection order statute; rather, he argued the judicial referee abused his discretion by including the specific terms of relief in the protection order. Upon review, the Supreme Court modified the domestic violence protection order and affirmed it as modified. View "Rinas v. Engelhardt" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court's judgment reversing an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Petitioner's driving privileges for two years for driving under the influence of alcohol. "A reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded that the hearing officer's finding that [Petitioner] did not have anything to eat, drink, or smoke during the twenty minutes before the Intoxilyzer test" was supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated the administrative suspension of Petitioner's driving privileges. View "Thorsrud v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Defendant Branden Clark appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of theft of property. On appeal, Defendant argued: the district court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instruction; insufficient evidence existed to support his conviction; his sentence was erroneous and excessive; and the court erred in admitting evidence the State failed to disclose before trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the trial court record, and that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Erling "Curly" Haugland appealed and Defendant-Appellee City of Bismarck cross-appealed a grant of summary judgment that declared North Dakota's Urban Renewal Law constitutional, and Bismarck's implementation of an urban renewal plan and use of tax increment financing to fund urban renewal projects in its urban renewal area compliant with the Act. Plaintiff claimed the Act violates the gift clause provisions of N.D. Const. art. X, section 18, the requirements for imposing taxes in N.D. Const. art. X, sections 3 and 5, and the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. He also claimed Bismarck's implementation of a perpetual urban renewal plan violated the Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court held the Act is constitutional, but the summary judgment record in this case did not establish whether Bismarck's renewal plan complied with the provisions of the Act. View "Haugland v. City of Bismarck" on Justia Law

Arnold Kosobud appealed and Teresa Kosobud cross-appealed a judgment(1) granting the parties a divorce, distributing their marital property, and ordering Arnold Kosobud to pay spousal support and attorney fees to Teresa Kosobud. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's findings of fact on property distribution and spousal support were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and in denying Arnold Kosobud's post-trial motions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the distribution of the Kosobud marital property. View "Kosobud v. Kosobud" on Justia Law

Roger Skachenko appealed a district court order that denied his request to use marital estate funds to conduct an evaluation of Kathryn Skachenko's business, a district court order that denied his request to include as a separate asset of the marital estate a loan owed by Kathryn Skachenko's business to her, and a district court judgment that required him to pay Kathryn Skachenko's attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court orders and judgment, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roger Skachenko's motion to use frozen marital funds to conduct a business evaluation, in denying Roger Skachenko's motion to include, as a separate asset of the marital estate, a loan owed by "Specialty Sling Co." to Kathryn Skachenko, or in ordering Roger Skachenko to pay Kathryn Skachenko's attorney fees and costs. View "Skachenko v. Skachenko" on Justia Law

Quality Auto Body, Inc. and Bradley R. Huebner ("Quality Auto Body") appealed a trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment awarding immediate possession of leased premises, a money judgment for past due rent and late fees, and a money judgment for reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements to Working Capital #1, LLC. Although an order for judgment is not appealable, "an attempted appeal from an order for judgment will be treated as an appeal from a subsequently entered consistent judgment, if one exists." The Supreme Court treated this case as an appeal, and affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding Working Capital immediate possession of the leased premises, a money judgment for past due rent and late fees, and a money judgment for reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements. View "Working Capital #1 v. Quality Auto Body" on Justia Law

On November 1, 2010, after speaking with her financial institution, Capitol Credit Union, and noting suspicious withdrawals from her savings account, Heidi Blum notified the Mandan Police Department about two unauthorized uses of her automated teller machine ("ATM") card. Blum claimed someone used her ATM card at two separate locations in Mandan to withdraw $165 from her bank account without her consent. During her conversation with Capitol Credit Union, Blum learned that Capitol Credit Union had mailed a new ATM card to her address and that it had separately mailed to the same address a corresponding personal identification number. Blum, however, had moved and no longer lived at that address. As part of the investigation, a Mandan police officer learned Defendant Steven Schmidt and his girlfriend resided at the address where Capitol Credit Union had mailed Blum's new ATM card and corresponding personal identification number. Defendant would later be charged with theft for having used the ATM card to make the withdrawals. He appealed his conviction; the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and his proposed jury instruction, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his pre-trial motion. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt" on Justia Law