Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Larry Rubey appealed a district court order limiting the presentation of evidence at his discharge hearing and from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Rubey argued the district court erred in restricting the evidence and finding he remained a sexually dangerous individual. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order that Rubey remained a sexually dangerous individual and deny Rubey's requested relief on the evidentiary limitation. View "Matter of Rubey" on Justia Law

Catherine Walstad appealed a district court memorandum opinion and order that reaffirmed its previous judgment requiring Richard Walstad to pay her $37,222.90 to equalize a property distribution after he intentionally concealed marital assets during the parties' 1994 divorce. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not follow its mandate on remand, the district court's property distribution was clearly erroneous, and the district court abused its discretion in not awarding attorney fees. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Walstad v. Walstad" on Justia Law

Greggory Tank appealed a judgment quieting title to certain McKenzie County oil, gas and mineral interests in Debbora Rolla, the personal representative of the estate of George Tank. Because the district court did not err in ruling the challenged quitclaim deeds reserved mineral interests in George Tank and reserved in him a life estate in the surface only, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rolla v. Tank" on Justia Law

Nathan Holte appealed a district court judgment that granted a divorce from Dawn Holte, distributed their property, and awarded Dawn spousal support. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court affirmed the spousal support award and but reversed the property distribution. View "Holte v. Holte" on Justia Law

Timothy Jenkins appealed a district court order that denied his motion to amend an amended divorce judgment to modify primary residential responsibility of the parties' children. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Jenkins' affidavit established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to change residential responsibility. Accordingly the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Nicholas Baatz appealed an order that denied his second application for post-conviction relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court to address the merits of Baatz's claims of denial of the right to counsel and of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because, under the law-of-the-case doctrine (from "North Dakota v. Baatz" (806 N.W.2d 438)), Baatz was allowed to raise these issues in a second post-conviction proceeding. View "Baatz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a quiet title action for mineral interests. Defendants-Appellants (Lyngstads) appealed the grant of summary judgment quieting title in the Plaintiffs-Appellees (Hallins) to a 2/3 interest of an undivided 3/4 interest in minerals in land in Mountrail County. After careful review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the legal effect of a 1960 warranty deed's plain language, excepting and expressly reserving "unto the Grantors [Lyngstads]" an "undivided 3/4 interest" in the minerals, did not alter their proportion of ownership existing before execution of the 1960 deed. View "Hallin v. Lyngstad" on Justia Law

Matthew Graham appealed a district court order that denied his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court erred in extending res judicata in this case to the question whether a committed individual has a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder, personality disorder or other mental disorder or dysfunction. View "Interest of Graham" on Justia Law

McColl Farms, LLC appealed district court orders that dismissed its claims against Lisa Pflaum for unjust enrichment, misappropriation, racketeering, and conversion and ordering McColl Farms and its attorney to pay her attorney's fees. McColl Farms is a limited liability company with three members. Aaron McColl and Katie Watson held minority interests. Aaron McColl worked for the farm and was married to Pflaum until they divorced in December 2009. In December 2011, McColl Farms and Aaron McColl sued Pflaum for unjust enrichment, coercion, conversion, misappropriation, and racketeering. They alleged that Pflaum, individually or in concert with Aaron McColl, converted and misappropriated more than $650,000 from McColl Farms between 2007 and 2009. Pflaum moved to dismiss the action or alternatively for summary judgment. Pflaum also moved for sanctions against her opponents. McColl Farms and Aaron McColl then moved for partial summary judgment, which was accompanied by an affidavit from DeWayne Johnston, McColl Farms and Aaron McColl's attorney, with exhibits attached, including documents related to Aaron McColl and Pflaum's banking records. Pflaum objected to the admission of Johnston's affidavit. Later, Aaron McColl and Cynthia McColl (the LLC's majority partner) also filed affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment. Ultimately the trial court granted Pflaum's motion and dismissed all of the claims against Aaron McColl and Pflaum. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims for misappropriation, racketeering, and conversion. However, it reversed the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, and one that granted Pflaum's request for sanctions. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McColl Farms v. Pflaum" on Justia Law

Wendy Rebel and Jesse Rebel were divorced in 2009 and have two minor children. In 2011, Jesse Rebel married Brandi Rebel. Jesse Rebel and Brandi Rebel appealed district court orders granting Wendy Rebel two-year disorderly conduct restraining orders against them. Wendy Rebel's petitions alleged, in part, an incident occurring on in 2012, after a school program, in which Brandi purportedly used vulgar and abusive language toward Wendy. Furthermore, Wendy alleged a confrontation occurring that same month, in which the Rebels approached Wendy in her car parked in front of the school, where she was picking up her son, and began shouting at her and calling her vulgar and abusive names. Wendy asserted the Rebels confronted her over alleged DNA evidence purportedly showing Jesse Rebel was not the father of their children. Wendy Rebel's petitions asserted that at the time she was frightened and called the police. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the disorderly conduct restraining orders against the Rebels. View "Rebel v. Rebel" on Justia Law