Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Terry Carter and Brenda Ciccone appealed a district court judgment in the informal probate of Allan Froemke’s will. Reginald Froemke, the personal representative of Allan Froemke’s Estate, Terry Carter, and Brenda Ciccone were Allan Froemke’s children. Reginald moved the district court to determine heirs, compute the distribution of the Estate’s shares, determine debts owed by heirs to the Estate, allow the personal representative to sell property, and approve the personal representative’s inventory. The court held an evidentiary hearing and issued findings, an order for judgment, and a judgment. Carter and Ciccone argued the district court lacked jurisdiction over a contract for deed involving Carter. They further argued the court erred in: (1) finding Ciccone owed five thousand dollars to Allan Froemke’s Estate; (2) its evidentiary rulings; (3) failing to address several pending issues; and (4) finding against partitioning property. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Estate of Froemke" on Justia Law

Jason Sayler appealed an amended judgment entered after a bench trial on the issue of parental responsibility. He argued the district court’s award of primary residential responsibility to Mari Sayler in Minnesota was procedurally improper because: (1) she did not make a motion to relocate the children to Minnesota; (2) the court erred by failing to apply the Stout-Hawkinson factors; and (3) the court erred by considering circumstances created by the interim order. He further argued the court’s findings on the best interest factors and decision-making authority were clearly erroneous. Finally, he argued the court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees. Finding only that the district court did not make sufficient findings to support its award of attorney’s fees, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the court’s award of attorney’s fees and remanded for the court to make further findings on its award of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the parts of the amended judgment awarding primary responsibility and decision-making authority. View "Sayler v. Sayler" on Justia Law

Jered Petersen appealed a criminal judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, reserving the right to appeal the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. He argued law enforcement unlawfully trespassed into his vehicle, violating his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding law enforcement unlawfully searched Petersen’s vehicle, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Petersen" on Justia Law

S.L.S., biological mother of D.M.H., appeals from an order reappointing J.H.T. and L.H.T. as D.M.H’s guardians and adopting a prior visitation schedule as the current visitation schedule. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: S.L.S. did not cite any statute or case requiring that a visitation schedule be updated or changed at a specific time. "Nor has she cited us to any law prohibiting a juvenile court from adopting a prior visitation schedule. Absent such a law and absent any argument a different visitation schedule would be beneficial to D.M.H., the court did not err by adopting the prior visitation schedule." View "Interest of D.M.H." on Justia Law

Robert Goff appealed an order denying his request for costs and attorney’s fees relating to the Department of Transportation’s suspension of Goff’s driving privileges. In December 2021, Fargo police officers arrested Goff in an apartment parking lot for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. A driveway used to access the parking lot included a sign reading “private property, private drive.” Goff requested an administrative hearing, arguing an ordinance, Fargo Municipal Code § 8-1011, limited the public’s right to access property marked as private without written permission from the owner. The owner of the property, John Goff, testified the parking lot was for tenant parking only. John Goff testified that deliverers and visitors are prohibited from going past the sign to access the parking lot. The hearing officer concluded the ordinance prohibited the public from parking in the private parking lot, but did not limit the public’s right to access the lot. The hearing officer found the public had a right of access to the private lot for vehicular use. The Department suspended Goff’s driving privileges for 91 days, and the district court affirmed. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding the hearing officer misinterpreted the ordinance. The case was then remanded for a determination of whether the Department acted without substantial justification requiring an award of costs and attorney’s fees to Goff under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-50(1). On remand, Goff argued he was entitled to costs and attorney’s fees because the Department’s action against him was not substantially justified. Goff claimed a reasonable person would not believe the public had a right to access the private parking lot in light of signage on the property and Fargo Municipal Code § 8-1011. The district court decided the Department acted with substantial justification, and denied Goff ’s request for costs and attorney’s fees. To this, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding the district court abused its discretion in deciding the Department’s proceeding against Goff was substantially justified. The case was remanded for a determination of Goff's reasonable attorney's fees. View "Goff v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Tyler Vetter appealed a fifth amended judgment entered after the district court denied his motion to hold Amy Salter in contempt and, on its own motion, invoked N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to modify a fourth amended judgment. The district court entered a judgment requiring Vetter to pay Salter child support. The judgment was amended various times (for reasons not relevant to this appeal). In a separate action, the court ordered primary residential responsibility changed from Salter to Vetter. The court subsequently entered a fourth amended judgment requiring Salter to reimburse Vetter child support amounts he paid. Two days after the court entered its order to amend the judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hamburger v. Hamburger, 978 N.W.2d 709, which explained a vested child support obligation could not be retroactively modified. Neither party appealed the fourth amended judgment. Vetter moved for an order to hold Salter in contempt for not paying him the $2,930. In consideration of Hamburger, the court, citing N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), ordered the fourth amended judgment “be modified to reinstate the child support obligation of Tyler Vetter” for the earlier period and to “strik[e] the obligation of Amy Salter to make reimbursement.” A fifth amended judgment was entered accordingly. The Supreme Court reversed in part: even if the trial court was correct that its original decision was based upon a mistaken view of the law, Rule 60(a) did not authorize the court’s modification. Therefore, the Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it invoked Rule 60(a) to relieve Salter of her obligations under the fourth amended judgment. View "North Dakota, et al. v. Vetter" on Justia Law

Andrew Hennessey appealed a district court order dismissing with prejudice his action against the Milnor School District (“District”). The District employed Hennessey as a teacher for the 2021-2022 school year. In October 2021, the District placed Hennessey on paid administrative leave for immoral conduct and conduct unbecoming his position. The District requested Hennessey sign a resignation letter, which would have immediately terminated his employment, salary, and benefits. He declined to sign the resignation letter and requested an administrative hearing. The District then converted Hennessey’s leave from paid to unpaid leave and recommended his dismissal for cause. Hennessey subsequently signed a severance agreement providing him salary through October 2021 and insurance benefits through December 2021, and waiving his rights to challenge the dismissal. He later learned through an open records request that the District’s legal counsel had advised the District in an email, in part, to convert his leave to unpaid to have “some leverage over this guy.” In December 2022, Hennessey filed this action seeking to rescind the agreement’s release and waiver section to allow him to challenge his dismissal. He claimed the District exerted undue financial pressure on him to secure the waiver of his rights to an administrative hearing and to challenge his termination in district court when it converted his paid leave to unpaid leave. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding Hennessey failed to allege facts sufficient to support rescinding a contract for undue influence under N.D.C.C. § 9-09-02. View "Hennessey v. Milnor School District" on Justia Law

Savanna Perales appealed a district court order requiring her to return her children to North Dakota. Perales and Erik Gonzalez were divorced by a Texas divorce decree. After the divorce, both parties lived in North Dakota. Perales then relocated with the children to Georgia. The district court, in an ex parte emergency order, ordered Perales to return the children to North Dakota. Later, the court held a hearing and issued the order from which Perales appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded this order was not appealable and dismissed the appeal. View "Gonzalez v. Perales" on Justia Law

Nicholas Larsen appealed orders revoking probation entered in three criminal cases. Larsen argued the district court imposed illegal sentences. In November 2020, the district court entered judgment in criminal case no. 18-2019-CR-02518 on four C felony-controlled substance violations, sentencing Larsen to 36 months’ imprisonment, all suspended except 224 days, on each count and placing him on two years of supervised probation. The same day, the court entered judgment in criminal case no. 18-2019-CR-02733 on two C felony-controlled substance violations, sentencing Larsen to 360 days’ imprisonment, all suspended except 224 days, on each count and placing him on two years of supervised probation. Again on the same day, the court entered judgment in criminal case no. 18-2020-CR-00676 on two C felony-controlled substance violations, sentencing Larsen to 36 months’ imprisonment, with all suspended except 184 days, on each count and placing him on two years of supervised probation. The State filed the underlying petitions for revocation on April 20, 2022 in all three cases, alleging violations occurred beginning in November 2021 through April 2022. In November 2022, the district court held a revocation hearing and Larsen admitted to all six allegations in the petitions. Upon revocation, the court resentenced Larsen to 36 months’ imprisonment with credit for the respective time served. The sentences were concurrent on the three cases on appeal, but consecutive to a newly filed case, case no. 09-2022-CR-02257, a Cass County controlled substance possession with intent conspiracy conviction. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined Larsen’s criminal convictions and sentencing occurred prior to a August 2021 amendment to the law under which he was charged. Applying the new version of the statute to Larsen’s November 23, 2022 revocations and resentencing would be a retroactive application of the August 2021 amendment to resentence Larsen to a greater penalty than he could have been resentenced to before the statute’s amendment. The Court affirmed the orders for revocation in criminal case nos. 18-2019-CR- 02518 and 18-2020-CR-00676. The Court reversed and remanded for resentencing in criminal case no. 18-2019-CR-02733. View "North Dakota v. Larsen" on Justia Law

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“DOCR”) petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original supervisory jurisdiction to direct the Honorable Judge Stacy Louser (hereinafter “district court”) to amend a portion of a criminal judgment imposing probation as part of a sentence for a class B misdemeanor and requiring the DOCR to supervise the probation. The DOCR argued it does not have statutory authority to supervise probation when the underlying charge was a class B misdemeanor. The DOCR requested the criminal judgment be amended to relieve the DOCR from the obligation to supervise the probation. Without deciding whether the district court has the authority to require a defendant to be supervised by the DOCR as part of a sentence imposed for a class B misdemeanor, the Supreme Court concluded the DOCR did have the authority to provide the supervision and declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. View "DOCR v. Louser, et al." on Justia Law