Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Rocky Stein appealed a district court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Stein was the driver of one of two vehicles involved in an accident that occurred in September 2013. The driver of the other vehicle died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Stein was subsequently charged with criminal vehicular homicide. While represented by counsel, Stein pleaded guilty to an amended charge of manslaughter. Stein was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with three years suspended for a period of five years. In his petition for post-conviction relief, Stein alleged various errors made by his attorney. Stein argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to his guilty plea. Stein contended he was not informed he would be required to serve 85 percent of any period of incarceration imposed as part of his sentence and that his sentence was likely to be limited to probation. Stein also stated in his affidavit, "I would not have pled guilty had I . . . [understood] the implications of the manslaughter plea . . . ." The Supreme Court determined the district court did not address Stein's allegation he was not informed he would be required to serve 85 percent of any period of incarceration imposed as part of his sentence, and that had he been informed of that requirement, he would not have pled guilty. Therefore, the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding that issue. The Court affirmed summary dismissal as to all other issues, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Stein v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Chance Innis, Cammie Wold, and Roadrunner Hotshot & Services, LLC ("RHS"), appealed a judgment awarding Louis Tornabeni $145,536.53 from Innis, and awarding Tornabeni $477,521.49, jointly and severally, from Wold and RHS. Innis and Wold were brother and sister. Innis operated a sole proprietorship doing business as Roadrunner Hotshot, which initially delivered goods to, and cleaned shacks at, oil rigs in western North Dakota and later began renting equipment to oil companies including Continental Resources. Wold operated Roadrunner Hotshot for Innis until April 11, 2011, when he transferred the business to her and she renamed and reorganized the company as Roadrunner Hotshot & Services, LLC. DTC Consulting employed Tornabeni as a drilling consultant in western North Dakota and assigned him to work on oil rigs operated by Continental Resources as part of his employment with DTC Consulting. Tornabeni and Wold began a romantic relationship in late 2009 or early 2010. According to Tornabeni, he met with Innis, Wold, and Nick Barker at a Williston, North Dakota, restaurant in the spring of 2010. Tornabeni testified he and Innis orally agreed that Tornabeni would provide equipment to Innis, and Innis, through his business, would then rent the equipment to Continental Resources under a Master Service Agreement. According to Tornabeni, the parties agreed he would receive ninety percent of the rental profits, and Innis would receive ten percent of the rental profits. Tornabeni provided equipment to Innis from July 2010 until Innis transferred his business to Wold in April 2011. Tornabeni continued to provide the equipment rented by Continental Resources after Innis transferred his business to Wold. According to Tornabeni, he arranged the equipment rentals to Continental Resources and for the payments by Continental Resources to RHS. Tornabeni's involvement with equipment rentals to Continental Resources ended on January 1, 2013, and his romantic relationship with Wold ended in June 2013. Tornabeni sued Innis, Wold, and RHS, alleging Innis breached their oral contract requiring Innis to pay Tornabeni ninety percent of rental income generated from equipment owned by Tornabeni and rented to Continental Resources from July 2010 through April 11, 2011. Tornabeni also alleged that after Innis transferred his business to Wold, Wold and RHS were unjustly enriched by the rental of equipment to Continental from April 2011 through December 2012. The district court determined that Innis and Tornabeni had an oral contract requiring Innis to pay Tornabeni ninety percent of the rental profit from equipment rentals and that Innis breached the oral contract. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed judgment against Innis, Wold and RHS. View "Tornabeni v. Wold" on Justia Law

Shane Martin appealed an order denying his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from default judgment. Martin was the biological father of Cheri Poitra's child, I.R.P. Martin and Poitra were unmarried tribal members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. In August 2017, Poitra began receiving services from Bismarck Regional Child Support Unit (BRCSU). The State sought to establish a child support obligation from Martin and served him with a summons and complaint. Martin completed a financial affidavit and returned it to BRCSU on October 8, 2017, but did not file an answer or other responsive pleading. On November 7, 2017, the State filed a N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 motion for default judgment. More than 21 days had passed since Martin was served and he had appeared but had not filed an answer or other responsive pleading. On November 17, 2017, Martin filed a notice of special appearance. The notice of special appearance did not contain an accompanying affidavit, motion, request for action, or response to the allegations. Instead, the notice stated only that Martin's attorney was entering a special appearance to contest "both subject matter and personal jurisdiction." Included with the notice was a copy of a summons and a petition for custody filed by Martin with the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court on November 16, 2017. A hearing on the "notice of special appearance" was held January 2018. During the hearing, the district court stated numerous times that the notice was not a motion on which the court could act and instructed Martin to file a motion. In February, 2018, the district court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment finding Martin in default. Judgment was entered February 21, 2018. Martin argues that his return of the financial affidavit and filing of a notice of special appearance was sufficient to preclude a default judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a) and thus the district court erred in denying his Rule 60(b) motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: the district court did not err in denying a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment where Martin was properly provided notice and served with the motion for default judgment. View "North Dakota v. Martin" on Justia Law

Anquine White appealed a district court judgment after a jury found him guilty of drug, paraphernalia and firearm possession. White argued officers conducted a warrantless, suspicionless probationary search and violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The North Dakota Supreme Court found reasonable suspicion of White's roommate violating probation was the support for the initial search of the home, and discovery of evidence in plain view permissibly expanded the search. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Dalyn Vollrath appealed a district court order requiring him to pay Pembina County, North Dakota $5,000 for guardian ad litem fees. Because the order was issued after the conviction was final and the issue was not preserved, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence. The Court, therefore, vacated the order requiring payment of guardian ad litem fees. View "North Dakota v. Vollrath" on Justia Law

Larry Alber appealed a January 2018 order amending a 2013 order which found Alber in contempt for failure to abate a nuisance on his property in compliance with a October 2003 judgment. He argued the judgment was satisfied when he filed reports of compliance with the district court and thus the property no longer contained a nuisance subject to abatement. The City of Marion ("City") argued the district court properly amended the 2013 order. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in amending its order to clarify that the nuisance on the property remained subject to abatement after Alber's conveyance of the property. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's amended order. View "North Dakota ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber" on Justia Law

Nathan Bornsen appealed the judgment entered following his conditional plea of guilty to a charge alleging he had been driving under the influence with one prior offense. Bornsen argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because because the deputy did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe Bornsen violated the law. Stopping, standing, or parking in particular locations is prohibited by N.D.C.C. 39-10-49. The statute enumerated 14 specific locations where vehicles may not be stopped "except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or traffic-control device . . . ." The North Dakota Supreme Court found that the deputy observed Bornsen stop for an extended time at an intersection, and it was objectively reasonable under the circumstances for the deputy to believe that there had been a violation of N.D.C.C. 39-10-49. The apparent violation, even if considered common or minor, was prohibited conduct which provided the deputy with requisite suspicion for conducting an investigatory stop. The district court, therefore, did not err in denying Bornsen's motion to suppress, and the court's judgment was affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bornsen" on Justia Law

Jeremy Ferderer appealed a January 25, 2018 order entered after the district court initially denied his self-represented motions under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) for correction of an illegal sentence and for summary judgment, and thereafter denied his self-represented "informational motion to compel and answer." In an affidavit in support of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, Ferderer claimed every part of his sentence for a class C felony, including the term of probation, had to fall within a five year maximum incarceration range and that the double jeopardy clause forbade more than a single punishment of incarceration. He claimed "PUNISHMENT included both imprisonment and supervision upon release and credit must be given both to keep sentence from being a double jeopardy violation and to keep a sentence from exceeding the maximum punishment." The State responded, arguing Ferderer's sentence was not illegal because his was a second conviction for stalking, and under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-06.1(6)(a) and (b) he was subject to ten years of supervised probation in no more than five year increments. In a January 5, 2018 order, the district court denied Ferderer's motions for correction of an illegal sentence and for summary judgment. The court explained the revocation of Ferderer's probation did not constitute double jeopardy, and neither the original sentence nor the amended sentence exceeded the maximum sentence allowed by law. On January 19, 2018, Ferderer filed an "informational motion to compel and answer." On January 25, 2018, the court denied that motion, stating there was "no matter pending to which a motion to compel could be addressed" and if Ferderer's motion was intended as a motion to reconsider the earlier January order, the motion to reconsider was denied. Ferderer filed a self-represented notice of appeal from the January 25, 2018 order. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Ferderer" on Justia Law

Trevor Rustad appealed the district court's judgment granting primary residential responsibility of his two children to their mother, Mary Baumgartner, and setting a parenting time plan for Rustad. He argued the district court's judgment was clearly erroneous because the court did not include in its analysis or findings evidence that was beneficial to him or detrimental to Baumgartner. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment granting primary residential responsibility to Baumgartner but reversed the parenting time plan and remanded for further proceedings. “Rather than the findings of risk to physical or emotional harm to the child that may justify such restrictive parenting time, it appears the district court has affirmatively found the absence of such risks. Thus, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made, and conclude the district court's order regarding parenting time is clearly erroneous.” View "Rustad v. Baumgartner" on Justia Law

Chad Schultz appealed a final judgment and decree of divorce entered on January 17, 2018 dissolving his marriage to Kelli Schultz. Chad and Kelli were married in September 2008 following a one and one-half- year period of cohabitation. In February 2016, after approximately seven and one-half years of marriage, the parties separated and Chad moved out of the marital home. Chad appealed the district court's valuation of marital assets and the allocation of the marital estate. The parties agreed that Chad would receive the farmland in the property distribution, but disagreed whether a reciprocal value should be allocated to Kelli. Chad argued that when considering the length of the marriage and that he inherited the property prior to marriage, the property should be allocated to him without a reciprocal allocation of value to Kelli. Kelli requested an equal division of the farmland's value through post-judgment payments to her from Chad. The district court's property division allocated a reciprocal value to Kelli and ordered a series of post- judgment equalization payments from Chad to Kelli. The post-judgment payments included an interest rate of 4%.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reversible error. “There is no bright-line rule to distinguish between short and long-term marriages.” When a distribution of property includes periodic cash payments from one spouse to another, a district court has broad authority to provide for the payment of interest in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the property. View "Schultz v. Schultz" on Justia Law