Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Glenvin Albrecht ("Glenvin") appealed, and Mark Albrecht ("Mark"), the personal representative of the estate ("the Estate") of Sharleen Albrecht ("Sharleen"), cross-appealed orders in an informal probate denying Glenvin's claims against the Estate. Glenvin argued that the district court's decision to deny Glenvin a recovery of jointly held marital assets transferred by Sharleen to the parties' son, Mark, should be reversed because, prior to Sharleen's death, she transferred the assets in violation of restraining provisions in a pending divorce proceeding. Glenvin further contended the district court abused its discretion in denying Glenvin's request for a recovery under principles of equity and its finding that Sharleen had not engaged in economic misconduct during prior divorce proceedings was clearly erroneous. The Estate argued that the district court improperly extended the time to commence an action against the Estate and erred as a matter of law in determining that Glenvin held the status of a surviving spouse with regard to the Estate. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order holding that Glenvin was a surviving spouse, denying Glenvin's request for contempt, the district court's order denying Glenvin's request for equitable relief and the district court's order denying Glenvin's request for relief from Sharleen's economic waste. View "Estate of Albrecht" on Justia Law

Steve Forster, Daniel Krebs, and Debra Krebs (collectively "Forster/Krebs") appealed the dismissal of their claims against B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc., and JB's Welding. Forster/Krebs argued the district court erred in construing language in a lease agreement with B&B Hot Oil as a waiver of their claims against B&B Hot Oil for damages to their building and property and to preclude a subrogation claim by their insurer, Acuity, against B&B Hot Oil. Forster/Krebs also argued the district court improperly granted summary judgment dismissing their claims against JB's Welding for concerted action and a joint venture. B&B Hot Oil leased one-half of a building owned by Forster/Krebs and used the leased property to store two hot oil trucks. An explosion in January 2010, destroyed the building and its contents and damaged surrounding property. The alleged cause of the explosion was a propane leak from one of the hot oil trucks, which has been referred to by the parties as a "knock off" truck built through "reverse engineering" by B&B Hot Oil with assistance from JB's Welding. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded a stipulation to dismiss Forster/Krebs' other remaining claims against JB's Welding without prejudice did not make the judgment final for purposes of appellate jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the appeal. View "James Vault & Precast Co. v. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Winnie Development, LLLP appealed a district court judgment holding it had no interest in a parcel of land in the City of Horace. This litigation arose after Winnie sought access over Parcel 1 to reach an adjacent 1.6-acre piece of land ("Parcel 2"). Parcel 2 was not in the Orth-Golberg Second Addition. It sat between the Sheyenne River and several other privately owned lots in the subdivision. Parcel 2 could be accessed only via Parcel 1, crossing the Sheyenne River or crossing privately owned property in the subdivision. Winnie brought this action to quiet title in Winnie to both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, to declare an easement by necessity in Winnie's favor over Parcel 1, or to reform the plat and declare Parcel 1 dedicated to the public subject to access rights not inconsistent with the plat's "City Dike Access." Some defendants owning land in the vicinity of Parcel 1 made no answer to Winnie's complaint. One defendant answered but did not otherwise litigate the issues. The district court ultimately entered judgment barring these defendants from further claiming any interest in Parcel 1. Stephanie and Benjamin Hendricks owned the property immediately south of Parcel 1. The Hendricks counterclaimed against Winnie, arguing they owned all or part of Parcel 1 and Winnie was trespassing on their property by using Parcel 1 to access Parcel 2. The district court rejected both of the Hendricks's counterclaims. None of the parties contested Winnie's claim to Parcel 2, and the district court quieted title in Winnie to that property. The City of Horace also answered and counterclaimed, alleging it had an interest in Parcel 1 to access City dikes. The district court subsequently granted the City's motion for summary judgment, holding the City has a right to use Parcel 1 to access the City's dikes regardless of ultimate disposition of the property. The court found the designation of Parcel 1 as "City Dike Access" divested Mary Lou Orth of any title, and thus the quitclaim deed Winnie obtained from her in 2014 conveyed no interest. The district court also found Winnie failed to meet its burden of proof establishing an easement by necessity, and found Winnie incorrectly claimed an easement over the land of a third party. Winnie argued it had a legal interest allowing access to its property adjacent to the disputed parcel. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court for entry of judgment, providing that Winnie held fee title to the disputed parcel subject to the City's access rights. View "Winnie Development, LLLP, v. Reveling" on Justia Law

Winnie Development, LLLP appealed a district court judgment holding it had no interest in a parcel of land in the City of Horace. This litigation arose after Winnie sought access over Parcel 1 to reach an adjacent 1.6-acre piece of land ("Parcel 2"). Parcel 2 was not in the Orth-Golberg Second Addition. It sat between the Sheyenne River and several other privately owned lots in the subdivision. Parcel 2 could be accessed only via Parcel 1, crossing the Sheyenne River or crossing privately owned property in the subdivision. Winnie brought this action to quiet title in Winnie to both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, to declare an easement by necessity in Winnie's favor over Parcel 1, or to reform the plat and declare Parcel 1 dedicated to the public subject to access rights not inconsistent with the plat's "City Dike Access." Some defendants owning land in the vicinity of Parcel 1 made no answer to Winnie's complaint. One defendant answered but did not otherwise litigate the issues. The district court ultimately entered judgment barring these defendants from further claiming any interest in Parcel 1. Stephanie and Benjamin Hendricks owned the property immediately south of Parcel 1. The Hendricks counterclaimed against Winnie, arguing they owned all or part of Parcel 1 and Winnie was trespassing on their property by using Parcel 1 to access Parcel 2. The district court rejected both of the Hendricks's counterclaims. None of the parties contested Winnie's claim to Parcel 2, and the district court quieted title in Winnie to that property. The City of Horace also answered and counterclaimed, alleging it had an interest in Parcel 1 to access City dikes. The district court subsequently granted the City's motion for summary judgment, holding the City has a right to use Parcel 1 to access the City's dikes regardless of ultimate disposition of the property. The court found the designation of Parcel 1 as "City Dike Access" divested Mary Lou Orth of any title, and thus the quitclaim deed Winnie obtained from her in 2014 conveyed no interest. The district court also found Winnie failed to meet its burden of proof establishing an easement by necessity, and found Winnie incorrectly claimed an easement over the land of a third party. Winnie argued it had a legal interest allowing access to its property adjacent to the disputed parcel. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court for entry of judgment, providing that Winnie held fee title to the disputed parcel subject to the City's access rights. View "Winnie Development, LLLP, v. Reveling" on Justia Law

Jason Tuhy appealed a divorce judgment distributing marital property and awarding spousal support and attorney's fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's distribution of the parties' remainder interests in property and award of spousal support were not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion when awarding attorney's fees. View "Tuhy v. Tuhy" on Justia Law

Jeremy White appealed a district court order denying his motions for relief from a judgment relating to primary residential responsibility and for contempt against Cassie Loibl. White and Loibl had one child together, born in 2015. In March 2016, the State sued White to decide issues of child support, health insurance and who could claim the child for income tax purposes. White was incarcerated when the State filed its complaint. The Barnes County Sheriff personally served White with the complaint at the Barnes County Correctional Facility. Loibl moved to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Loibl served White with the motion by mailing it to the Barnes County Correctional Facility and two other addresses in Valley City. White did not respond to either the State's complaint or Loibl's motion. The district court entered a judgment awarding Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility of the child. The court awarded White supervised parenting time and ordered him to pay $575 per month in child support. In February 2017, White moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and for contempt against Loibl. White claimed he did not respond to Loibl's motion because he did not receive the motion. He stated he was released from jail on March 4, 2016, and did not reside at the addresses to which Loibl mailed the motion. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, White argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion because extraordinary circumstances justified relief because he did not receive Loibl's motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Jeremy White appealed a district court order denying his motions for relief from a judgment relating to primary residential responsibility and for contempt against Cassie Loibl. White and Loibl had one child together, born in 2015. In March 2016, the State sued White to decide issues of child support, health insurance and who could claim the child for income tax purposes. White was incarcerated when the State filed its complaint. The Barnes County Sheriff personally served White with the complaint at the Barnes County Correctional Facility. Loibl moved to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Loibl served White with the motion by mailing it to the Barnes County Correctional Facility and two other addresses in Valley City. White did not respond to either the State's complaint or Loibl's motion. The district court entered a judgment awarding Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility of the child. The court awarded White supervised parenting time and ordered him to pay $575 per month in child support. In February 2017, White moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and for contempt against Loibl. White claimed he did not respond to Loibl's motion because he did not receive the motion. He stated he was released from jail on March 4, 2016, and did not reside at the addresses to which Loibl mailed the motion. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, White argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion because extraordinary circumstances justified relief because he did not receive Loibl's motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Laura Rende appealed after a jury found her guilty of simple assault on a peace officer and driving under the influence. The district court did not instruct the jury to make a finding whether Rende knew the arresting officer was acting in his official capacity at the time of her arrest. A district court's use of jury instructions that fail to include every element of the offense is error. However, that error is waived if defendant invited the error by submitting proposed instructions that also failed to include every element of the offense and if the defendant failed to object to the instructions at trial. "It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party. A party may not take advantage of irregularities in the proceedings unless he objects at the time they occur, allowing the district court to take appropriate action." After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, because Rende invited the error. View "North Dakota v. Rende" on Justia Law

Laura Rende appealed after a jury found her guilty of simple assault on a peace officer and driving under the influence. The district court did not instruct the jury to make a finding whether Rende knew the arresting officer was acting in his official capacity at the time of her arrest. A district court's use of jury instructions that fail to include every element of the offense is error. However, that error is waived if defendant invited the error by submitting proposed instructions that also failed to include every element of the offense and if the defendant failed to object to the instructions at trial. "It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party. A party may not take advantage of irregularities in the proceedings unless he objects at the time they occur, allowing the district court to take appropriate action." After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, because Rende invited the error. View "North Dakota v. Rende" on Justia Law

Nathan Rolfson appealed after a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Rolfson argued the district court erred in admitting into evidence three foundation documents for the Intoxilyzer test result because the State failed to disclose the documents in response to his discovery request. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding, that although the State violated the discovery rule, Rolfson failed to show significant prejudice resulted from the State's failure to disclose the three challenged documents before trial, and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude the exhibits from evidence. View "North Dakota v. Rolfson" on Justia Law