Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jason Ziemann, the plaintiff, became involved in the operation of Grosz Wrecking, a business owned by his grandmother, Juanita Grosz, after her husband passed away. Ziemann moved into a home on the business property in 2014. In 2022, Grosz sought to evict Ziemann after he refused to purchase the home. Ziemann then sued Grosz, alleging they had an oral partnership agreement and sought a declaration of partnership, accounting, and dissolution, along with claims for breach of fiduciary duties and tortious interference with a business relationship. Grosz denied the partnership and counterclaimed for trespass.The District Court of McLean County denied Ziemann’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling factual issues existed regarding the partnership. The court granted Grosz’s motion, dismissing Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty, citing inadmissible hearsay and lack of evidence for damages. After a bench trial, the court found the parties had formed a partnership with specific profit-sharing terms and dismissed Grosz’s trespass claim, allowing Ziemann to remain on the property until the business was dissolved. The court ordered the liquidation of partnership assets and awarded Ziemann costs.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court’s findings that a partnership existed and that Grosz contributed property to it. The court also upheld the dismissal of Grosz’s trespass claim and Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty. However, it reversed the lower court’s decision not to apply the default partnership winding up provisions under N.D.C.C. § 45-20-07. The case was remanded for the district court to enter judgment consistent with this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of costs and disbursements to Ziemann as the prevailing party. View "Ziemann v. Grosz" on Justia Law

Christapher Enriquez pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver or manufacture, a class B felony, and was sentenced to probation. A condition of his probation was that he not possess a firearm or dangerous weapon. Federal officers from the DEA executed a search warrant on Enriquez’s home and allegedly found a handgun, fentanyl pills, and methamphetamine. The State filed a petition to revoke his probation based on these findings. At the revocation hearing, the State presented testimony from Enriquez’s probation officer, who had received a picture of the handgun and narcotics from a DEA agent. The probation officer did not know where in the house the handgun was found or if it was functional.The District Court of Ward County found that the State did not prove Enriquez possessed fentanyl or methamphetamine but did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he possessed a handgun. The court revoked Enriquez’s probation and resentenced him, relying on the principle that a single violation is sufficient to sustain revocation.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and applied a two-step analysis: first, reviewing the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard, and second, reviewing the decision to revoke probation under the abuse-of-discretion standard. The Supreme Court found that the district court’s reliance on the case State v. Clinkscales was misplaced and that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the handgun was functional or readily capable of expelling a projectile, as required by the statutory definitions of “dangerous weapon” and “firearm.”The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court’s finding that Enriquez possessed a dangerous weapon was clearly erroneous and that the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. The decision to revoke Enriquez’s probation was reversed. View "State v. Enriquez" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Robert V. Bolinske, Sr., filed a defamation claim against Dale V. Sandstrom and Gail Hagerty, alleging that defamatory statements were made and published online on October 18, 2016. Bolinske served a demand for retraction on January 14, 2017, but Sandstrom did not respond. Bolinske commenced the action on February 26, 2019, beyond the two-year statute of limitations for defamation claims.The District Court of Burleigh County initially dismissed Bolinske’s defamation claim, citing the statute of limitations. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed this decision in part, noting that the statute of limitations defense was not specifically pled by answer, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, Sandstrom answered the amended complaint, including the statute of limitations defense, and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted, finding the defamation claim time-barred. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to Sandstrom, deeming Bolinske’s claims frivolous.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the defamation claim was indeed barred by the statute of limitations, as the action was commenced more than two years and 45 days after the publication of the alleged defamatory statements. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, agreeing with the lower court’s assessment that Bolinske’s claims were frivolous and that the fees requested were reasonable. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions. View "Bolinske v. Sandstrom" on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Heather Zins share a child, A.J.O., born in 2004. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Rath was ordered to pay child support. A.J.O. turned 18 in November 2022, ending Rath's ongoing support obligation, but he had accrued arrears. Rath was served with an order to show cause for civil contempt due to non-payment. After an evidentiary hearing, a judicial referee found Rath in contempt and ordered him to make monthly payments towards his arrears, with a suspended 20-day jail sentence contingent on a future hearing.Rath sought review by the District Court of Burleigh County, which adopted the judicial referee's findings. Rath appealed, arguing violations of his right to counsel, errors in child support calculations, and that the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits the State's ability to collect more than fifty percent of his income. He also claimed the defense of laches and third-party standing should prevent enforcement of his obligations.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case under a clearly erroneous standard. The court held that Rath's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the contempt hearing did not result in immediate incarceration, and procedural safeguards were followed. The court also found that Rath's child support obligation continued despite temporary custody by the division of juvenile services and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support arrearages. Additionally, the court ruled that the State and Zins have standing to collect arrears even after the child reached the age of majority, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act does not limit the State's collection efforts in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Burleigh County Social Service Board v. Rath" on Justia Law

Thomas Zundel attempted to purchase a firearm but was denied due to a 1990 simple assault charge in Jamestown Municipal Court, which was flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The charge was noted as continued for a year pending counseling, with no conviction confirmed. Zundel's voluntary appeal to the FBI was denied because the final disposition of the case was missing. Zundel sought records from various agencies, but none had documentation beyond the initial arrest. He then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to close the case and restore his constitutional rights.The Jamestown Municipal Court and other respondents argued that Zundel had an adequate remedy in federal court, referencing Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that a federal suit would not adequately address the state court records issue. The court emphasized the municipal court's duty to maintain accurate records and noted that the missing record should have been retained permanently according to administrative rules.The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the petition in part, ordering the Jamestown Municipal Court to conduct a diligent inquiry to locate or reconstruct the missing record and document the results. The court denied Zundel's requests for declaratory relief regarding the nature of the 1990 charge and his right to possess a firearm, citing a lack of evidence in the record to make such determinations. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurate court records for due process and public accountability. View "Zundel v. City of Jamestown" on Justia Law

Jason Anderson and Olivia Foss, who share a child but were never married, were involved in a legal dispute over modifications to their parenting plan. Foss sought sole decision-making responsibility, required Anderson to take their child to extracurricular activities during his parenting time, and sought reimbursement for health insurance premiums. Anderson countered with a motion to modify child support. The district court modified the parenting plan and child support obligations after a two-day evidentiary hearing.The district court set the commencement date for the modified child support to September 2023, rather than September 2022, without providing an explanation. Anderson appealed, arguing the date should be from when he filed the motion. The court also calculated Foss’s child support obligation based on a partial year’s income and a 32-hour work week without sufficient findings to support these calculations. Additionally, the court ordered Anderson to reimburse Foss for out-of-pocket medical expenses but did not explain how it arrived at the reimbursement amount.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s requirement for Anderson to take the child to extracurricular activities during his parenting time, clarifying that this did not modify his parenting time. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not provide sufficient findings to support the commencement date for the modified child support, the calculation of Foss’s income, and the reimbursement amount for medical expenses. The court also required further explanation for removing all day-to-day decision-making from Anderson.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed parts of the district court’s decision, reversed others, and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to provide additional findings within 30 days. View "Anderson v. Foss" on Justia Law

In 2023, Victoria Reiswig was charged with corruption of a minor, a class C felony, under North Dakota law. Reiswig filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the State failed to corroborate her confession and did not provide sufficient evidence that a sexual act occurred between her and the minor. The evidence presented included testimony from various witnesses and a video interview in which Reiswig admitted to having sex with the minor.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, denied Reiswig’s motion to dismiss. The court found that the confession was voluntary and that the totality of the evidence, including witness testimonies and the video interview, supported the truth of Reiswig’s confession. The court noted that while individual pieces of evidence might not independently prove a sexual act occurred, together they corroborated the confession. Reiswig then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, applying the same standard of review as for a motion to suppress. The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence to support the trustworthiness of a confession. The court found that the district court’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence, including the video interview and witness testimonies that corroborated details of the confession. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court correctly applied the law and that its findings were not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Reiswig’s motion to dismiss and upheld the criminal judgment. View "State v. Reiswig" on Justia Law

Lynn and Tanya Heiser filed a lawsuit to quiet title to a 0.90-acre tract of land in McKenzie County, North Dakota, which they claimed through adverse possession and acquiescence. The disputed land is adjacent to their property and separated from Nevin and Laura Dahl's property by County Road 34. The Heisers and their predecessors had used the land for various purposes, including building structures, parking equipment, and general maintenance, since the 1960s.The District Court of McKenzie County ruled in favor of the Heisers, finding that they had established title to the disputed land through adverse possession and acquiescence. The court found that the Heisers and their predecessors had used the land continuously and openly for over 20 years, meeting the requirements for adverse possession. The court also concluded that County Road 34 served as a natural boundary, which the parties had mutually recognized as the property line.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court's findings were insufficient to support the conclusion that the Heisers had adversely possessed the entire disputed tract. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court had improperly relied on the transfer of property ownership to establish hostile use and had not adequately determined the 20-year period of adverse possession. Additionally, the court found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the entire disputed land was improved or enclosed.The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further findings on the extent of the Heisers' adverse possession. The court also held that the District Court erred in finding that County Road 34 was the boundary line by acquiescence, as there was no mutual recognition of the boundary by both parties. View "Heiser v. Dahl" on Justia Law

On December 29, 2015, Timothy Morales, a pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle driven by Ruby Junewal while walking along a roadway within the Weatherford distribution facility in Williston, North Dakota. Morales alleged that Weatherford U.S., L.P. was negligent in maintaining the premises, specifically citing inadequate lighting, lack of road signs, and absence of sidewalks. Morales filed a lawsuit in 2019 against Weatherford, Junewal, and Junewal’s employer, Wilhoit Properties, Inc., asserting claims of negligence and premises liability.The District Court of Williams County granted summary judgment in favor of Weatherford, concluding that Weatherford did not owe Morales a duty of care. The court dismissed all claims against Weatherford and the other defendants. Morales appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in its judgment.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the danger posed by vehicles on the roadway was open and obvious, and therefore, Weatherford owed no duty of care to Morales. The court noted that Morales was aware of the dangers of walking on the roadway and that the conditions were such that a reasonable person would have recognized the risks. The court also rejected Morales's argument that Weatherford should have anticipated the harm despite the obvious danger, concluding that the distraction exception did not apply as Morales's distraction was self-created. The judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice was affirmed. View "Morales v. Weatherford U.S." on Justia Law

ND Energy Services, LLC, entered into a temporary layflat easement agreement with Kathleen Stroh, granting it the exclusive right to transfer freshwater via aboveground layflat hoses on Stroh's property. Lime Rock Resources III-A, L.P., and Herman Energy Services, LLC, subsequently placed layflat hoses on the same property to transport water for fracking operations. ND Energy sued Lime Rock for tortious interference with contract and willful trespass, seeking a permanent injunction.The District Court of Dunn County granted summary judgment in favor of Lime Rock, dismissing ND Energy's claims. The court found that the oil and gas leases, which Lime Rock had acquired, provided Lime Rock the right to use the property for oil and gas production, including the installation of layflat hoses. The court also concluded that ND Energy had notice of Lime Rock's rights due to a recorded memorandum of a surface use agreement and that Lime Rock's actions were justified.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the leases granted Lime Rock the right to use layflat hoses on the property, as this use was necessary for oil and gas production. The court also determined that ND Energy was not a good-faith purchaser of the layflat easement because it had constructive notice of the surface use agreement through the recorded memorandum. Consequently, ND Energy's claims for tortious interference and a permanent injunction were dismissed, as Lime Rock's actions were justified under the leases. View "ND Energy Services, LLC v. Lime Rock Resources III-A" on Justia Law