Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the case before the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Russell Everett Jr., the appellant, sought to appeal a district court's order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Everett contended that he had not been served with two orders from his first post-conviction relief proceeding, thereby denying him the right to appeal those orders. He also alleged that the discovery of these orders constituted newly discovered evidence, and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during his direct appeal.Everett had been convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition and had been sentenced to two life sentences with the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed by this court. In his first application for post-conviction relief, Everett argued that the witness's testimony had been coerced by their family and that he had discovered new evidence that could overturn his conviction. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a violation of his right to a fair trial as the victim-witness did not attend the trial. The district court denied this application, and neither the order nor notice of entry of the order was served on Everett.In response to Everett's second application for post-conviction relief, the court summarily dismissed it. Everett subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's dismissal of Everett's second application for post-conviction relief. The court determined that Everett's claim of "newly discovered evidence" did not meet the statutory requirements as it did not pertain to his original conviction. Furthermore, the court found that Everett's appeal had been filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations for filing post-conviction relief claims, and no exception to this statute applied in this case. Additionally, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also deemed to have been filed after the statute of limitations had expired. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court had not erred in dismissing Everett's claims for post-conviction relief and ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Everett v. State" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a district court's judgment, which had dismissed the claims of Jacob Ebel, John Ebel, and Ordeen Ebel (collectively, "the Ebels") for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, breach of contract, and tortious interference. The Ebels had sought enforcement of contracts they claimed were formed when their bids for parcels of real property owned by the estate of Mark Engelhardt were accepted. The district court had dismissed the Ebels' claims, asserting that the parties did not satisfy the statute of frauds, which requires contracts for the sale of real property to be in writing. The Supreme Court found that the district court misapplied the law because the statute of frauds was not specifically pled or otherwise raised by the parties. The Supreme Court noted that under Rule 8 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, the statute of frauds must be specifically pled as an affirmative defense. Therefore, the case was reversed on the ground that the district court incorrectly applied the statute of frauds when the defense was not properly raised. View "Ebel v. Engelhart" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute that arose after a divorce between Greg Grengs and Lisa Genareo (formerly Lisa Grengs). As part of the divorce settlement, the Supreme Court of North Dakota ordered that property owned by GLG Farms, LLC, a company established by Grengs to hold ownership of his farm property and equipment, be mortgaged to provide Genareo with security for a property settlement payment valued at $1,300,000. Following the court order, two new members were added to GLG Farms, LLC, and the company filed for bankruptcy protection. Grengs and GLG Farms, LLC, then entered into a stipulation agreement in bankruptcy court, agreeing to mortgage terms and payment terms. However, GLG Farms, LLC, later argued that the two new members of the company were not required to execute the mortgage and that the agreement in bankruptcy court had little impact on the court's decision.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's order, holding that Grengs acted as an ostensible agent of GLG Farms, LLC, with apparent authority. The court found that Genareo was right to believe that GLG Farms, LLC, consented to Grengs acting as its agent, thus binding the company to the stipulation agreement. The court concluded that GLG Farms, LLC, ratified Grengs' actions by embracing their advantages and using them in judicial proceedings and did not timely disavow Grengs' actions.The court also rejected GLG Farms, LLC's argument that the district court failed to adequately describe the terms of the required mortgage, pointing out that a statutory mortgage form exists and that the amounts due by Grengs were plainly provided in the stipulation. The court further found GLG Farms, LLC's argument that North Dakota law does not provide a standard mortgage to be frivolous, awarding Genareo $1,000 as a sanction. View "Grengs v. Grengs" on Justia Law

In this case presided by the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant, Michael Dean Hamilton, was charged with hindering law enforcement under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-03(1)(b) by providing transportation and money to an individual involved in an abduction crime in Virginia. Prior to the trial, Hamilton and the State reached a plea agreement, but the district court rejected it, citing insufficient factual basis for Hamilton's guilty plea. Instead, the district court accepted an open plea from Hamilton. On appeal, Hamilton argued that the district court had abused its discretion by rejecting the plea agreement and then accepting the open plea, despite both requiring a factual basis. He also claimed that the court had relied on impermissible sentencing factors, including information outside the record and inferences from the record.In its decision, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that Hamilton's claim regarding the rejection of the plea agreement was waived when he entered an open guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The court stated that after entering an open plea without conditions, a defendant could only challenge the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea. Therefore, Hamilton could no longer challenge the non-jurisdictional defects of the district court's rejection of the plea agreement.Regarding the sentencing factors, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not commit an obvious error when it considered information outside the record and relied on its personal knowledge about Amber alerts in deciding Hamilton's sentence. The court stated that Hamilton had not demonstrated that the factors considered by the court were a clear deviation from the applicable statutory provisions, case law, or rules of evidence. As a result, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

In a divorce and child support dispute in the State of North Dakota, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's judgment, which involved the calculation of the defendant's child support obligation, decisions on evidentiary matters and the awarding of attorney’s fees.Aron Williams and Jennifer Williams, who have two children together, divorced in February 2018. Jennifer Williams was awarded primary residential responsibility of the children, and Aron Williams was ordered to pay child support based on his classification as an experienced farmer with an imputed gross annual income. The case has gone through several rounds of modification and amendment of judgments.In the latest appeal, Aron Williams contested the district court's categorization of him as a "farmer" and its subsequent calculation of his income for child support purposes, arguing that he should be considered a "farm laborer" with a lower income. The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court did not err in classifying Aron Williams as a farmer and imputing the statewide average income of a farmer to him for the purposes of child support.Additionally, Aron Williams argued that the district court erred in its decisions regarding evidentiary matters and the awarding of attorney’s fees to Jennifer Williams. The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s motion to reopen the record or in awarding attorney’s fees, and therefore affirmed these decisions. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

In this case, Travis Wedmore appealed a ruling by the District Court of Burleigh County, which found that he has serious difficulty controlling his sexual behavior and thus remains a sexually dangerous individual. However, the Supreme Court of North Dakota found that Wedmore's appeal was not filed within the statutorily required 30 days after the district court's order denying his discharge from civil commitment. The court determined that the appeal was untimely regardless of whether "entry of the order" was interpreted as the date the order was signed or the date it was docketed. As such, the Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the appeal. View "Interest of Wedmore" on Justia Law

In February 2020, Shift Services, LLC (Shift) was contracted by Ames Savage Water Solutions, LLC (Ames) to repair a liner inside a water tank operated by Ames. The agreement was for a fixed price of $39,500.00, which included all labor, material, and travel time. When Shift began the work, they found a more significant amount of ice in the tank than initially observed. Shift communicated with Ames about the issue and decided to subcontract a hot oil truck company to melt the ice. Upon completion of the project, Ames paid the contracted amount but refused to pay an additional $31,705.00 bill from Shift related to the ice removal. Shift claimed that the contract was modified to include these additional costs, which Ames had allegedly approved. The district court dismissed Shift's breach of contract claim and terminated the construction lien it had placed on the property, finding that there was a lack of mutual assent to modify the contract.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Shift did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate mutual assent for the modification of the original contract. The court pointed out that Shift had not disclosed to Ames that they intended to add an additional charge for the increased cost associated with the ice removal, nor did they discuss the details of the subcontractor, the equipment to be used, or the estimated number of hours that the removal would take. In conclusion, the court found no error in the district court's finding of a lack of mutual assent to modify the contract, thereby confirming that Ames did not breach the contract. View "Shift Services v. Ames Savage Water Solutions" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Fonda Jo Powell and Mary T. Henke, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of June A. Slagle, alongside Helen Verhasselt, the trustee of the June Slagle Family Mineral Trust, filed an appeal against Statoil Oil & Gas LP (now known as Equinor Energy LP). The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered after the district court granted Statoil's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a dispute of title allowed Statoil to suspend royalty payments and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to statutory interest. The plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in concluding there was a title dispute, while Statoil argued that this action was barred by the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the decision of the district court, concluding that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations and that the court erred in concluding that Statoil lawfully suspended royalty payments. The court determined that a ten-year statute of limitations applied to the claim for untimely payment of royalties under the oil and gas lease, as per N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(2). Furthermore, the court concluded that, when a dispute is between the mineral developer and the mineral owner, notice of the dispute is required under N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.4. As Statoil did not provide evidence that it had notified June Slagle of a title dispute, it was required to pay interest on the unpaid royalties at a rate of 18% per annum. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Powell v. Statoil Oil & Gas" on Justia Law

In North Dakota, the Sargent County Water Resource District ("District") initiated an eminent domain action to acquire permanent and temporary easements over five properties adjacent to Drain 11 for a drainage project ("Project"). The landowners argued that the project was unlawful because it did not qualify as “maintenance” and exceeded the six-year maximum maintenance levy without the approval of the majority of landowners. The District countered that the landowners’ arguments were foreclosed because they did not appeal the District’s “Resolution of Necessity” and their arguments were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. The district court ruled that the landowners’ arguments were not foreclosed and granted condemnation of the property for the Project.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held the landowners' arguments were not foreclosed and the district court did not err in reaching this conclusion. The Court ruled that the landowners were not precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel from challenging whether the Project was authorized by law in defending against an eminent domain action.However, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's finding that the Project was a use authorized by law and that no landowner vote was required for the Project. The Court concluded that the Project as currently designed and approved exceeded the statutory maximum maintenance levy and could not proceed without the approval of the majority of landowners as required by state law. The judgment was therefore reversed. View "Sargent Cty. Water Resource District v. Beck" on Justia Law

In November 2021, Mark Bearce was charged with two counts of driving under the influence resulting in death and four counts of reckless endangerment. In October 2022, Bearce pled guilty to the two driving under the influence charges in exchange for the dismissal of the reckless endangerment charges. The district court sentenced Bearce to a 12-year prison term for the first count and a 20-year term with 8 years suspended for the second count, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In December 2022, Bearce filed a motion to amend the judgment, claiming he was not given credit for time served. The court amended the judgment, giving Bearce credit for 15 days of time served. In January 2023, Bearce filed another motion for a reduction of his sentence, which the court granted in April 2023, amending his sentence so that the two counts would run concurrently. However, the court did not provide reasons for this reduction.The State of North Dakota appealed this decision. The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision to reduce Bearce's sentence but noted that the lower court had erred by not stating its reasons for the reduction in writing, as required by North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure 35(b). The Supreme Court also noted that it could not reverse or modify a criminal judgment in a way that would increase the defendant's punishment, as per North Dakota Century Code § 29-28-35. The Supreme Court also concluded that the lower court did not err in reducing Bearce's sentence without considering the victim's rights, as neither the victim nor anyone else had asserted these rights. View "State v. Bearce" on Justia Law