Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law

Tina Valeu appealed a second amended judgment denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility. Valeu and Ernest Strube were married in 2009 and had one child. The parties divorced in 2013. Before the divorce trial, the parties presented a stipulated parenting plan in which the parties agreed Strube would have primary residential responsibility for the child but they would have equal parenting time until the child started kindergarten in fall 2016, at which time Valeu's parenting time would be reduced to every other weekend during the school year and extended parenting time in the summer. The district court adopted the parties' stipulation and incorporated it into the final judgment. In January 2016, Valeu moved to modify the judgment, requesting the court award her primary residential responsibility for the child. She argued the court was required to make an original determination about primary residential responsibility because the parties agreed to a parenting plan in which they would exercise joint residential responsibility. She also argued there were numerous material changes in the parties' circumstances, including that Strube denied the child medical care, her health and well-being increased while the child's condition declined, and the child resided with her significantly more days than he resided with Strube. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Valeu v. Strube" on Justia Law

Brent Thompson appealed the district court's judgment awarding split residential responsibility and requiring Brent to pay spousal support. Brent and Jeanna Thompson married in 1999, and Brent filed for divorce in 2015. The parties had three minor children, C.M.T., C.F.T., and C.L.T. When the parties initially separated in 2015, C.F.T. chose to reside with Jeanna and C.M.T. chose to reside with Brent. C.L.T. went back and forth between the two households. At trial, Brent requested primary residential responsibility of all three children. Each of the children expressed a preference for primary residence. C.F.T. and C.L.T. preferred to reside primarily with Jeanna, and C.M.T. preferred to reside with Brent. The district court entered a divorce judgment dividing the parties' assets and debts, granting split residential responsibility, and awarding Jeanna spousal support. Brent argues the district court failed to make sufficient findings as to factors enumerated in Section 14-09-06.2(1), N.D.C.C. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court's award of split residential responsibility and spousal support was adequately supported by the record. “Split residential responsibility is not preferred, but it is not expressly prohibited. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is of sufficient maturity to make a sound judgment, the court may give substantial weight to the preference of the mature child. This Court will not reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses. A district court's determination on spousal support will not be set aside for failure to explicitly state the basis for its findings if that basis can be reasonably inferred from the record.” View "Thompson v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Shawn Montgomery appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to a charge of driving under the influence. Montgomery argued the State violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search by compelling his consent to a blood test. Voluntary consent to a warrantless blood test is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, for which the State bears the burden of proof. A district court's decision on a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Artec Homes, LLC ("Artec") appealed an amended judgment granting foreclosure in favor of Andrew Martin ("Martin"), and dismissing Artec's claims against Martin and Greyson Financial Services, Inc. ("Greyson"). This case was the fourth lawsuit relating to an unfinished real estate development referred to as Magic Meadows in Minot, North Dakota. Highpoint Properties, LLC ("Highpoint") originally owned 127 residential lots in the Magic Meadows development. In September 2011, Artec purchased an interest in twenty of the lots from Highpoint for $400,000. Highpoint continued to own the remaining 107 lots after the sale of the twenty lots to Artec. In April 2013, while the first lawsuit between Artec and Highpoint was pending, Highpoint conveyed its interest in the remaining 107 lots to Marquee Pacific, LLC ("Marquee"). In June 2013, Greyson loaned $400,000 to Marquee in exchange for a mortgage against the remaining 107 lots. Greyson subsequently assigned the mortgage to Martin in November 2014. In December 2013, Artec began the third lawsuit against Highpoint and Marquee after it discovered Highpoint transferred the remaining 107 lots to Marquee. Artec alleged that Highpoint's conveyance of the remaining 107 lots to Marquee was fraudulent. Highpoint and Marquee did not defend the lawsuit, and Highpoint's conveyance to Marquee was set aside. Greyson and Martin were not parties to the third lawsuit. Following that lawsuit, Artec owned all 127 lots subject to the mortgage on 107 lots originally held by Greyson and assigned to Martin. The latest lawsuit was initiated by Martin against Marquee and Artec seeking to foreclose the mortgage on the 107 lots. Artec counterclaimed against Martin and subsequently brought a third-party complaint against Greyson, alleging they did not receive the mortgage from Marquee in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value, rendering the mortgage unenforceable. Martin and Greyson moved to dismiss Artec's counterclaim and third-party complaint, and Martin moved for summary judgment on the foreclosure claim. The district court concluded that because Greyson obtained its mortgage from Marquee before Artec sued to set aside the conveyance from Highpoint to Marquee in the third lawsuit, Greyson should have been made a party to that action. The court held Artec improperly split its cause of action because it did not join Martin and Greyson in the fraudulent transfer action. The court granted Martin's motion for summary judgment on the foreclosure claim after determining that dismissal of Artec's claims against Martin and Greyson eliminated Artec's only defense to the foreclosure claim. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded:because Greyson and Martin were not parties to the fraudulent transfer action nor in privity with Highpoint or Marquee, the res judicata prohibition against splitting a cause of action did not apply, and the district court erred in dismissing Artec's claims. View "Martin v. Marquee Pacific, LLC" on Justia Law

Joshua Gomez appealed an order of civil commitment after the district court determined he was a sexually dangerous individual ("SDI"). Gomez argued the district court erred in allowing the State to call as a witness an expert appointed on his behalf. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Matter of Gomez" on Justia Law

Joshua Gomez appealed an order of civil commitment after the district court determined he was a sexually dangerous individual ("SDI"). Gomez argued the district court erred in allowing the State to call as a witness an expert appointed on his behalf. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Matter of Gomez" on Justia Law

When considering whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a container found within an automobile, courts will look at whether the individual: (1) asserts ownership of the container; (2) asserts ownership of the vehicle; (3) testifies or presents evidence establishing possessory interest in the container; (4) was present at the time of the search; and (5) whether the container itself has identifying markings or if the contents within have identifying characteristics. Casey Adams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Police received a report of suspicious activity in a Grand Forks parking lot. The caller reported individuals moving backpacks from a Nissan into a Cadillac, among other suspicious behavior. Three officers responded to the scene. The officers testified they observed the individuals displaying odd behavior, consistent with drug use. One officer observed a blue container he believed to be drug paraphernalia inside the Cadillac, indicating he saw a crystal or powder substance on it and it was similar to a container used in a separate drug related call less than 24 hours prior. Three individuals were in the Cadillac and Adams was in the Nissan. No consent was given to search either vehicle. Based on the observation of the blue container in plain view, the officers searched the Cadillac and seized more than 80 items relating to drug use. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Adams' argument that the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not support the district court's probable cause finding was moot. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Adams' motion to suppress evidence because Adams failed to show he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpacks. View "North Dakota v. Adams" on Justia Law

Brenda Doll appealed a district court order denying her motion for reconsideration of a disorderly conduct restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Doll's motion for reconsideration. View "Kautzman v. Doll" on Justia Law