Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jim Arthaud appeals a district court judgment granting Jim Fuglie’s motion to dismiss. Arthaud sued Fuglie, alleging Fuglie published a defamatory statement in his internet blog titled “A Bridge to Nowhere.” The blog was published in August 2018 on Fuglie’s website, “The Prairie Blog.” Arthaud brought suit on October 5, 2021, asserting he did not learn about the post until September 2021. Fuglie responded and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Arthaud’s claim was time barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The district court subsequently granted the motion to dismiss, finding Arthaud’s claims were time barred under section 28-01-18(1) of the North Dakota Century Code regardless of whether the discovery rule applied in defamation cases. Arthaud argued the North Dakota Supreme Court should adopt the “discovery rule” when determining whether a litigant has timely brought a defamation claim. The Supreme Court held it was unnecessary to decide whether to adopt the discovery rule for defamation claims because the Uniform Single Publication Act precluded the discovery rule from applying to statements made to the public. View "Arthaud v. Fuglie" on Justia Law

Transform Operating Stores, LLC d/b/a Transformco Operating Stores LLC; Transform SR Brands LLC d/b/a Transformco d/b/a Kmart; and Transform KM LLC (collectively, “Transform”) appealed after a North Dakota district court entered an order awarding damages to Ted J. Boutrous, L.L.C. and The Boutrous Group, LLP and entered a [second] amended judgment of eviction. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err finding a material breach of the lease and in exercising jurisdiction as a summary eviction. "While the court abused its discretion in bifurcating the eviction action, that error was harmless." The Court further concluded Transform failed to timely appeal the court’s contempt order for the untimely turnover of the property. View "Boutrous, et al. v. Transform Operating Stores, et al." on Justia Law

Angus Kennedy owned real property and mineral interests in McKenzie County, North Dakota. In 1960, Angus and his wife, Lois, executed two deeds conveying the surface and “excepting and reserving unto the parties of the first part, their heirs, successors or assigns, all right, title and interest in and to any and all . . . minerals in or under the foregoing described lands.” Lois did not own an interest in the property when Angus and Lois Kennedy executed the deeds. Angus died in 1965, and Lois died in 1980. Angus and Lois did not have children together. Angus had six children from a previous marriage. Angus' heirs executed numerous mineral leases for the property. Lois had one child, Julia Nevin, who died in 1989. In 2016 and 2017, Julia Nevin’s surviving husband, Stanley Nevin, executed mineral leases with Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. In 2018, Stanley sued the successors in interest to Angus, alleging Lois owned half of the minerals reserved in the 1960 deeds. In response, the Angus heirs claimed Angus did not intend to reserve any minerals to Lois because she did not own an interest in the property conveyed in the 1960 deeds. The district court granted Northern Oil’s motion to intervene. Northern Oil appeals the quiet title judgment deciding Northern Oil did not own mineral interests in the McKenzie County property, arguing the district court erred in concluding the deeds at issue were ambiguous as to whether Angus intended to reserve minerals to his wife, Lois. Finding no reversible error in the trial court judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nevin, et al. v. Kennedy, et al." on Justia Law

Travis Hoffman appealed an amended judgment and orders denying his motion to modify residential responsibility and granting Tia Hoffman’s motion for a change of residence to relocate out of state with their minor child. Travis argued the district court erred in denying his motion to modify residential responsibility by applying a heightened standard to his motion and, alternatively, finding he failed to satisfy that standard. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment and orders denying the motion to modify residential responsibility and granting the motion for a change of residence. View "Hoffman v. Hoffman, et. al." on Justia Law

Joshua Bowen appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in finding Bowen failed to make a clear and unambiguous request for an independent chemical test and in admitting the chemical breath test results without requiring the State to produce the state toxicologist at trial. View "North Dakota v. Bowen" on Justia Law

Trevon Thompson appealed a judgment and order denying a motion to suppress. In late 2021, the Devils Lake Police Department received a call about possible drug activity at a Devils Lake motel. The Department provided the information to the Lake Region Narcotics Task Force. The task force surveiled the motel and search warrants were obtained for two rooms at the motel. Officers ultimately found cash and baggies of oxycodone. The State charged Thompson with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and refusing to halt. Thompson moved to suppress the evidence obtained during execution of the three warrants, and entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Thompson argued the warrants were issued without probable cause. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding sufficient probable cause supported issuance of warrants I, II, and III. Sufficient additional probable cause existed to execute warrants I and II at night. The information used to obtain warrant III was not poisoned by prior illegal searches. Therefore, the evidence seized during execution of warrant III was not obtained unlawfully. View "North Dakota v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Stefan Dunn appealed after he pled guilty to three counts of violation of a domestic violence protection order and a single count of preventing arrest. The district court then asked Dunn multiple questions regarding his rights, if he understood the open plea agreement, and if he understood he would not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if accepted by the court. Dunn answered affirmatively to these questions. Dunn pled guilty, was sentenced, and released. On July 20, 2022, Dunn wrote a letter to the district court requesting to withdraw his guilty plea because new evidence supported his innocence. The letter stated the victim attempted to drop the order for protection on numerous occasions but that it took approximately six months to do so, and that other defendants had their orders dropped much sooner. For those reasons, Dunn argued he was not guilty. The court issued an order denying his request. The court found that Dunn had not established a manifest injustice because the factual arguments in his letter were known by the parties and court during the plea and sentencing phases, and were taken into consideration at that time. The court also found that Dunn understood his plea was an open one, what consequences would result by agreeing to it, that he was giving up specific rights, and that he fully understood the plea. The district court determined Dunn entered his plea freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Ayrica Penor, formerly Ayrica Jensen, appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility. On appeal, Penor argued the district court erred in determining that she failed to plead a prima facie case and in denying her request for a hearing. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jensen v. Jensen, et al." on Justia Law

Travis Iversen appealed a judgment entered in favor of appellee, Larson Latham Huettl, LLP (hereafter “LLH”), and an order denying relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j). Iversen was an attorney employed by LLH from February 2019 until July 2021. Iversen asserts that Tyrone Turner, an LLH partner, told Iversen that “you can only do the work that we give you.” After Iversen terminated his employment with LLH, LLH requested that Iversen refund it $35,772.63 for overpayment. LLH argues that Iversen owes this debt to LLH because he had not been credited with sufficient billable hours to justify the compensation he received under the employment agreement. Iversen refused to pay the deficiency, and LLH then sued Iversen. The district court issued a memorandum opinion granting LLH’s motion for summary judgment. Before judgment was entered, Iversen filed a “motion for reconsideration” citing N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j). The district court denied Iversen’s motion. Iverson argued that several genuine issues of material fact remained, precluding summary judgment. He also argued the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion under Rule 59(j). Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and the order denying Iversen’s Rule 59(j) motion. View "Larson Latham Huettl, LLP v. Iversen" on Justia Law

L&C Expedition, LLC (“L&C”) appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of International Fidelity Insurance Company (“IFIC”) and denying summary judgment to L&C. L&C contracted with Unlimited Excavating (“Unlimited”) to perform work on a residential development project. Unlimited completed its work in November 2016 and received final payment in July 2017. In 2019, L&C learned of major problems in the construction and notified Unlimited it needed to make repairs. Unlimited did not make the repairs and L&C demanded IFIC arrange for performance of Unlimited’s work per the terms of the performance bond. IFIC refused to arrange for performance. L&C subsequently initiated suit against IFIC in May 2020 arguing L&C is entitled to recover $393,000 under the terms of the performance bond. The performance bond provided the following: “[a]ny suit under this bond must be[] [i]nstituted before the expiration of two years from the date on which final payment under the subcontract falls due.” The parties do not dispute the district court’s finding L&C initiated its action outside the limitation period provided within the terms of the bond. L&C argued the district court erred in finding a contractual limitation on the period to assert a claim was enforceable, erred in failing to apply N.D.C.C. § 9-08-05 to preclude modification of the applicable statute of limitations, and erred in interpreting N.D.C.C. § 22-03-03 as providing an exception to the prohibition against modifying the applicable statute of limitations. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "L&C Expedition, et al. v. Swenson, Hagen and Co., et al." on Justia Law