Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

K.S., the mother of three minor children, appealed the termination of her parental rights. A petition to terminate her rights was filed after one day in June 2017, law enforcement and ambulance service was called to her residence; police found K.S. unconscious on the bathroom floor with a needle in her arm. Her extremities were blue and she was gasping for breath. It was alleged she was experiencing a drug overdose. Ward County Social Services moved the juvenile court to reopen the termination of parental rights proceeding for an evidentiary hearing regarding the overdose. K.S. opposed the motion. The court granted the motion because it had not yet issued a final order and the facts of the underlying incident may have a direct bearing on the matter. After a supplemental evidentiary hearing, the court entered an order terminating the parental rights of the three children. K.S. argued the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting a motion to reopen the record. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the record for a supplemental hearing and affirmed. View "Interest of F.S., M.S., Jr., and M.S." on Justia Law

Connie Welker and Vicki Ostrem appealed a district court judgment deciding ownership of mineral interests in Mountrail County. Welker and Ostrem argued the court erred in finding that a resulting trust exists and that the trust was not repudiated. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding a resulting trust existed, and Welker and Ostrem failed to establish the trustee's repudiation of the trust. View "Markgraf v. Welker" on Justia Law

Stephen Zundel appealed a district court judgment declaring Loren and Richard Zundel complied with a lease relating to grain and farm equipment storage, declaring the lease remained in effect, and dismissing Stephen's eviction action against Loren and Richard Zundel. Loren and Richard Zundel cross-appealed the judgment awarding them $21,182 in attorney's fees and costs. Edwin Zundel and his sons, Loren, Richard, Stephen, and Donald, used the bin site at issue in this appeal in varying amounts. Edwin leased the bin site to his sons at an annual rate of $400. The lease also included provisions regarding the use of the property, repairs, and default. The lease provided the bin site was to be used primarily for storing crops, farming equipment, and farming supplies. The lease provided the term of the agreement was the life of all tenants. The family partnership subsequently conveyed the bin site to Stephen and he became the landlord under the lease. A dispute arose in 2014 after Stephen demanded additional rent of $400 from each tenant. Loren and Richard refused to pay and expressed their position that the total annual rent was $400 from all tenants. Stephen also demanded that repairs be made to the bin site. The district court ruled the bin site lease did not violate N.D.C.C. 47-16-02, finding the bin site lease was not a lease of agricultural land in part because "[i]n the lease . . . the parties agree that this land is not suitable for farming." The court also decided the use of the leased property was not for agricultural purposes. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the property covered by the bin site lease was not agricultural land; the bin site lease plainly stated the leased property was not suitable for farming. The lease also excluded pasture land from the property covered by the lease. The district court made numerous findings relating to repairs on the bin site. Those findings were supported by the record on the basis of Loren and Richard's testimony. The Court concluded the trial court did not clearly err in finding Loren and Richard maintained the bin site in good condition and did not breach the bin site lease. However, the Court concluded the trial judge abused his discretion in finding Stephen's counterclaim relating to N.D.C.C. 47-16-02 was frivolous, therefore that part of the judgment awarding Loren and Richard attorney's fees was reversed. The case was remanded to the district court to redetermine the award of attorney's fees related to the frivolous counterclaims disposed of on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "Zundel v. Zundel" on Justia Law

William and Rhonda Kulczyk appealed a district court judgment dismissing their complaint seeking to foreclose a mortgage against Tioga Ready Mix Co. The court held res judicata barred the Kulczyks' foreclosure action on the basis of previous litigation between the parties. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding res judicata did not bar the Kulczyks' foreclosure action against Tioga Ready Mix. View "Kulczyk v. Tioga Ready Mix Co." on Justia Law

Landowners from the Buffalo area appealed a district court judgment affirming the Department of Health's decision to issue Rolling Green Family Farms an animal feeding operation (AFO) permit. The landowners argued the Department erred by issuing Rolling Green an AFO permit and by failing to reopen the public comment period after Rolling Green provided further information to supplement its permit application. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coon v. N.D. Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

Ale Majetic appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Majetic argued his right to an impartial jury was violated when, after a 56-day continuance, the district court failed to inquire whether the jury had formed an opinion in the case or had been influenced by the media. He also argued the court abused its discretion in commenting on his expert witness's testimony. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not commit obvious error, and affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Majetic" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed a district court order denying his petition to correct his sentence or declare a "mistrial" based on his claim of prejudicial sentencing. A supervisory writ is issued rarely and cautiously only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rath's petition under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 because his sentence was not illegal. The Court treated his request on appeal, however, as a request for a writ of supervision based on the district court's oral pronouncement during his resentencing in 2012 for a felony that he would keep his "misdemeanor disposition." The Court concluded this was an appropriate case to exercise its discretionary supervisory jurisdiction. The Court remanded with instructions for the district court to direct the clerk of district court to change the disposition of this case to a misdemeanor under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-02(9). View "North Dakota v. Rath" on Justia Law

Marqus Welch appealed, and Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") cross-appealed a judgment affirming an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") decision that affirmed a WSI order ending Welch's vocational rehabilitation benefits and disability benefits and that reversed a WSI order finding Welch committed fraud and requiring him to repay benefits. To trigger the civil penalties for making a false statement in connection with a claim for WSI benefits, WSI must prove: (1) there is a false claim or statement; (2) the false claim or statement is willfully made; and (3) the false claim or statement is made in connection with any claim or application for benefits. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the ALJ did not err in affirming WSI's disability benefits order because a reasoning mind could reasonably conclude Welch could return to work. The Court concluded, however, the ALJ misapplied the law in failing to apply the proper definition of "work" and in analyzing whether Welch had "willfully" made false statements. View "Welch v. Workforce Safety & Insurance" on Justia Law

Steven Newark, Jr. appealed after a jury found him guilty of burglary, terrorizing, and criminal mischief. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Newark's motion for a continuance or a dismissal. Furthermore, the Court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in allowing the State to call a police officer to testify in rebuttal and in delaying its ruling whether other officers would be allowed to testify in rebuttal. View "North Dakota v. Newark" on Justia Law

John Smart appealed an amended divorce judgment and from an order and judgment denying his motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's equitable redistribution of the marital property was not clearly erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in entering the amended judgment, denying Smart's subsequent post-judgment motions, and awarding attorney's fees. View "Lewis v. Smart" on Justia Law