Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Elton Lovro appealed a judgment dismissing his complaint with prejudice after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Finley (“City”). Lovro owned a house and property in Finley, Steele County, North Dakota. In March 2020, the City’s water line connected to the curb stop leading to Lovro’s home broke. Water flowed onto the property, damaging Lovro’s driveway and basement. Lovro sued the City for negligence and gross negligence, alleging the damages were caused by the City’s failure to properly operate, maintain, repair, and inspect their water system. Lovro also sued the City for breach of contract based on the City’s failure to properly and safely deliver water to his home. The City responded by denying the allegations that it was negligent, grossly negligent or that its acts or omissions caused the damages. The City denied the existence of any contractual relationship between Lovro and the City. The City affirmatively alleged that it was immune from suit under chapter 32-12.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Lovro argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing his claims because the ruling was premature and discovery was still ongoing. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Lovro v. City of Finley" on Justia Law

Braden Allery appealed an order denying his motion for relief from a default judgment modifying primary residential responsibility for the two children he had with Regan Whitebull. In 2019, the district court entered a judgment awarding Allery and Whitebull equal residential responsibility of the children. In March of 2021, Whitebull moved to amend the judgment, asserting a material change in circumstances had occurred because the parties no longer lived in the same area and the children were then both school-aged. Her motion papers were personally served on Allery. The sheriff’s return of service showed he was served in Parshall. Allery did not respond to the motion. The district court entered an order finding Whitebull established a prima facie case justifying modification of primary residential responsibility and ordered an evidentiary hearing. The court served the order and notice of hearing on Allery at a Bismarck address. Allery did not appear at the evidentiary hearing, and Whitebull moved for entry of default judgment. On the day of the hearing, after it had concluded, Allery learned through social media the hearing had been held. Allery sent a letter to the district court the same day, stating that he never received notice of the hearing. He requested the court reschedule the evidentiary hearing and send notice to his current Parshall address. The court granted Whitebull’s motion for default judgment and awarded her primary residential responsibility of the children. Allery moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) requesting the district court vacate the order due to excusable neglect or based on the strong public policy of adjudicating matters on the merits. The North Dakota Supreme Court was not persuaded the district court erred in denying Allery's motion, and affirmed judgment. View "Allery v. Whitebull" on Justia Law

Richard Anderson appealed an order denying his motion challenging the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(4)(r) and seeking modification of his probation conditions. He argued the probation condition restricting his internet access violated his constitutional rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Anderson’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the statute was not ripe for review. View "North Dakota v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Edward Skorick appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Skorick argued the district court’s factual findings were insufficient to legally conclude he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Specifically, Skorick contended because he did not receive negative behavioral acknowledgements over the review period, the State failed to meet its burden. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court made adequate findings to demonstrate Skorick had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The district court considered the testimony and evidence presented, including Skorick’s past and present conduct, in making its finding he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The court noted Skorick’s history of negative behavior at the North Dakota State Hospital, including being oppositional to staff, cursing at staff, and calling staff stupid, to the point of having outside time cut short. The court found Skorick has threatened to commit an offense to get out of the State Hospital so he can return to the state penitentiary. The court stated these behaviors had occurred through October 2020, roughly one year before the hearing, but also indicated Skorick had engaged in inappropriate behavior in early 2021. The court found Skorick refused blood pressure medication in October 2020, and the record reflects Skorick has a history of refusing his medication, including a period in May 2021. The court found, although he did not recently receive negative behavioral write ups, Skorick had not implemented meaningful changes to interrupt his pattern of sexual offenses, Skorick continued to be impulsive and disregard the feelings of others, and Skorick’s behavioral issues remained unchanged and pervasive. Accordingly, the district court judgment was affirmed. View "Interest of Skorick" on Justia Law

David Mbulu appealed a district court order granting his application for post-conviction relief in part and denying it in part. In 2017, Mbulu was convicted of conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition, accomplice to gross sexual imposition, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. In 2018, Mbulu applied for post-conviction relief, alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including that his trial counsel failed to subpoena and call his co-defendant, Jean-Michael Kisi, to testify during the trial. He claimed Kisi’s testimony would have resulted in a different outcome on the conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition and accomplice to gross sexual imposition charges. Mbulu later moved to amend his application to include claims that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective because they failed to object to errors in the jury instructions for the conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition charges, which allowed him to potentially be convicted of non-cognizable offenses After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err by denying Mbulu’s claims related to the jury instructions for the conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition charge. However, the Court also concluded the court erred by summarily dismissing Mbulu’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to the failure to call his co-defendant as a witness during the criminal trial. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mbulu v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

LuAnn Erickson appealed a district court order granting her motion to vacate its previous order recognizing a tribal court restraining order under N.D.R.Ct. 7.2, but concluding that the tribal court restraining order was entitled to full faith and credit under 18 U.S.C. § 2265. Erickson argued that the court erred in granting full faith and credit to the tribal court order, because the tribal court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and the tribal court failed to provide her reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. Specifically she averred she was not properly served with the tribal court proceedings. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court record did not reflect Erickson was properly served with the tribal court proceedings under the Tribal Code. “Without proper service on Erickson, a hearing should not have been held, and a permanent protection order should not have issued.” Further, because the record demonstrated that Erickson was notified of the protection order proceedings after a permanent protection order was already entered, it follows that she was not afforded reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 2265(b)(2). “Although Erickson responded to Baker’s attorney’s email attaching exhibits, this email was sent to Erickson the day before the hearing. Further, the email did not contain any information that would have informed Erickson a hearing would be conducted the following day. We conclude this is insufficient to satisfy due process requirements.” Therefore, the district court erred in according full faith and credit to the tribal court restraining order. The district court order granting Erickson’s motion to vacate its previous order recognizing a tribal court restraining order was affirmed; however, insofar as the order granted full faith and credit to the tribal court restraining order, judgment was reversed. View "Baker v. Erickson" on Justia Law

Cody Berdahl appealed a divorce judgment entered following a bench trial in his divorce action against Joleen Berdahl. He argued the district court erred in distributing the marital property, in ordering him to pay spousal support to Joleen, and in awarding Joleen credit for attorney’s fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the trial court’s inclusion of property acquired after the parties’ separation was induced by an erroneous view of the law. Therefore, the court’s distribution of marital property was reversed and this issue remanded with instructions to assign value only to property that existed at the time of separation and to equitably distribute the property after taking into consideration the correct value of the marital estate. Further, because the district court’s order was “internally inconsistent” with regard to the award of attorneys’ fees, the Court remanded that issue for further consideration. The Court found no reversible error as to the award of spousal support, and affirmed as to that issue. View "Berdahl v. Berdahl" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing a Department hearing officer’s decision to suspend McKayla Hanson’s driving privileges. Hanson was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Deputy Kyle Haman administered a chemical breath test using the Intoxilyzer 8000. The hearing officer found that Deputy Haman was the field inspector who installed the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in this matter and that he fairly administered the test in accordance with the approved method. The district court reversed the decision, concluding that the evidence did not show “when and if the Intoxilyzer was properly installed” and that the hearing officer abused her discretion in admitting the chemical breath test results. The Department argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court that documentation established the Intoxilyzer 8000 was installed by a field inspector before its use, and the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion in admitting the chemical breath test results. To this the Supreme Court concurred, reversed the district court judgment and reinstated the hearing officer’s decision. View "Hanson v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Aisha Piker appealed an amended criminal judgment ordering her to pay restitution. In February 2021, the State charged Piker with aggravated assault after allegedly stabbing her boyfriend in the hand. In June 2021, Piker entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct. The plea agreement provided that Piker would pay restitution as determined at a later date. The district court accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment. Piker argued the district court erred in determining the restitution amount. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Piker" on Justia Law

In May 2021, the State filed a complaint charging Madison Dearinger with hindering law enforcement, a class C felony, and false information to law enforcement, a misdemeanor. Under the felony count, the State alleged Dearinger provided false information to a law enforcement officer before and after her father, Adam Dearinger, committed burglary. At the preliminary hearing, Dearinger moved to dismiss the felony charge of hindering law enforcement arguing she did not commit a felony because she did not know Adam Dearinger committed burglary at the time she lied to law enforcement. The district court found Dearinger knew of conduct constituting assault and violation of a protection order, but did not analyze whether she knew of conduct constituting burglary. The court determined the State failed to provide evidence for the felony enhancement and dismissed the hindering law enforcement charge. The State argued the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the felony charge of hindering law enforcement under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-03. To this the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed and reversed the trial court’s judgment. View "North Dakota v. Dearinger" on Justia Law