Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Evan Markestad and Joy Markestad, who divorced in early 2023, share two minor children. Joy was awarded primary residential responsibility, while Evan received parenting time. In summer 2024, Evan agreed that Joy and the children could temporarily reside in Bismarck. Joy later decided to remain in Bismarck permanently and enrolled the children in school there. In March 2025, Evan moved to modify parenting time due to the changed circumstances. Joy partially agreed, asking the district court to alter the school-year schedule but not the summer and holiday arrangements. The district court held a hearing and issued an order and amended judgment modifying parenting time.In the District Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District, the court examined both parties’ proposals for summer parenting time. Evan requested the entire summer, whereas Joy proposed alternating weekends and two additional weeks. The court considered their respective work schedules, finding Joy, as a teacher with summers off, more available and able to transport the children. The court also considered Evan’s farming obligations, noting his work frequently interrupted the prior parenting schedule. The court ultimately awarded Evan two consecutive weeks in July, Father’s Day, and an additional two-week vacation period, rather than adopting either party’s full proposal. The court also considered the conduct of both parties, including Joy’s lack of candor regarding her move and Evan’s demeaning language, but concluded the record supported its findings.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s decision under the clearly erroneous standard and affirmed both the order modifying parenting time and the amended judgment. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not misapply the law or prioritize Joy’s wishes over the children’s best interests, and its findings were supported by the record. Requests for attorney’s fees by both parties were denied, and the Supreme Court found the appeal was not frivolous. View "Markestad v. Markestad" on Justia Law

Niko Solis was charged with indecent exposure, a class A misdemeanor, after engaging in conduct outside a courthouse near a school. He entered a guilty plea to the charge. The State requested that Solis be required to register as a sex offender, while Solis argued that the court should exercise its discretion to deviate from the registration requirement, citing statutory criteria that permit deviation under certain circumstances.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, presided by Judge Stacy J. Louser, sentenced Solis to 360 days’ imprisonment with all but one day suspended, imposed two years of supervised probation, and required Solis to register as a sex offender under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(b). The court acknowledged its discretion to deviate from registration but ultimately declined to do so, citing concerns about the nature of Solis’s conduct and his explanation for it. Solis appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion and failed to make specific findings required for deviation.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. It held that the statute’s language allows the court discretion to deviate from the registration requirement if certain criteria are met, but does not mandate deviation even if those criteria are satisfied. The Supreme Court determined that the district court’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and that it was the result of a rational process. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment and the requirement that Solis register as a sex offender. View "State v. Solis" on Justia Law

This case concerns a dispute among siblings regarding the partition of farmland in Grant County, North Dakota, originally owned by their parents. After the parents conveyed the land to their children as tenants in common, reserving life estates, four siblings transferred their interests into a family trust in 2017, leaving Bryan Tischmak as the sole sibling outside the trust. In 2022, the trust entered into an agreement for rock, sand, and gravel extraction on portions of the property. Bryan initiated a partition action in 2023, seeking division of the land and an accounting of income.The District Court of Grant County, South Central Judicial District, presided over a bench trial, during which the parties stipulated to the appointment of a referee to recommend partition options. Bryan advocated for an option that would award him sections including the family homeplace, but the court adopted a different recommendation (Recommendation 5), granting him the S1/2 of Section 33 and the NW1/4 of Section 34, and ordering the trust to pay him a sum based on the property’s value and his share of land income. The court later corrected a clerical mistake that had mistakenly awarded Bryan all of Section 33 instead of the S1/2, and denied Bryan's motions to alter or amend the judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in adopting the referee’s recommendation, correcting clerical errors, and calculating Bryan’s share of income and expenses. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that its findings were not clearly erroneous. However, the Supreme Court modified the judgment to require the trust to reimburse Bryan $2,417.20 for certain trust-exclusive expenses. The judgment was otherwise affirmed as modified. View "Tischmak v. Theurer" on Justia Law

In March 2024, Christopher Bauer was charged with disorderly conduct following an incident in Williston, North Dakota. He retained legal counsel and the case proceeded to a jury trial, at the conclusion of which Bauer was acquitted. After his acquittal, Bauer submitted a motion seeking reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs incurred during the defense of his criminal prosecution.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over by Judge Kirsten M. Sjue, reviewed Bauer’s post-judgment motion. The court denied his request for attorney’s fees and costs, determining that Bauer had not established a legal basis for recovering such expenses in the context of the criminal proceeding. Bauer also argued that the district court judge committed misconduct warranting discipline, but the court’s order did not address this allegation, and there was no indication that the issue had been properly raised or preserved during district court proceedings.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota considered whether the district court’s post-judgment order was appealable and addressed the merits of Bauer’s requests. The Supreme Court held that Bauer’s motion for recovery of attorney’s fees, which sought reimbursement of property allegedly expended in connection with the criminal action, constituted a substantial right under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06(5), making the order appealable. However, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Bauer’s motion, finding he had not shown entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs in the criminal case. The Supreme Court also declined to consider Bauer’s judicial misconduct claim on appeal, as it had not been preserved in the trial court. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "City of Williston v. Bauer" on Justia Law

The case involves a parent, D.A.D., whose parental rights regarding his child, G.M.H., were challenged following a period of incarceration. D.A.D. and the child’s mother, K.R.H., separated in June 2022. Shortly after, D.A.D. was arrested and later convicted of possessing child pornography, resulting in nearly three years of incarceration. During his imprisonment, D.A.D. made limited attempts to communicate with G.M.H., sending only a few letters and making a small number of phone calls. The divorce judgment provided for supervised parenting time after his release, contingent on D.A.D. providing specific information to K.R.H., which he failed to do.A petition for termination of parental rights and for adoption was filed by K.R.H. and her spouse, D.A.H., in April 2025. The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, held a hearing and found by clear and convincing evidence that D.A.D. had abandoned G.M.H. and that his conduct, faults, and neglect justified termination of his parental rights. The court cited his lack of meaningful contact and support, both before and during his incarceration, and concluded that there was no reasonable expectation his behavior would change.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its discretionary decision for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s finding of abandonment was supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous. The court also determined that the statutory definition of abandonment, as applied, did not violate D.A.D.’s constitutional rights, as it required consideration of whether failures to communicate or support were without justifiable cause, including incarceration. The order terminating D.A.D.’s parental rights was affirmed. View "Adoption of G.M.H." on Justia Law

Two minor children, J.C. and S.C.Y., both enrolled members of the Mandan Hidatsa Arikara Nation, were placed in the care of Ward County Human Service Zone after repeated removals due to concerns about their mother, P.D.'s, ability to provide proper care. The children were found to be in need of protection and had spent substantial periods in foster care. The State sought termination of P.D.’s parental rights, alleging persistent issues that endangered the children’s well-being, including P.D.'s instability, incomplete compliance with service plans, ongoing substance abuse, and involvement in criminal activity.The Juvenile Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, reviewed the petitions and held a trial. The court considered testimony from various witnesses and documentary evidence, including progress reports and judicial notice of prior protection proceedings. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that the children were in need of protection, the causes for protection were likely to continue, and the children had suffered harm. The court also found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that returning the children to P.D. would likely cause them serious emotional or physical harm. The court terminated P.D.’s parental rights.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s factual findings and conclusions regarding the need for protection and likelihood of ongoing harm. However, the Supreme Court found that the juvenile court failed to make the required specific findings under N.D.C.C. § 27-19.1-01(2), which mandates detailed findings that “active efforts” were made to provide remedial and rehabilitative services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that these efforts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded the case for the juvenile court to make these necessary findings, allowing additional evidence if required. View "Interest of S.C.Y." on Justia Law

Kolstad and Claussen are the unmarried parents of two minor children, having lived together for about four years before separating in early 2024. Claussen also has primary residential responsibility for a child from a previous marriage. After their separation, Kolstad initiated a legal action seeking primary residential responsibility and child support for their two children, while Claussen counterclaimed for the same relief. The district court held a bench trial in October 2024, during which Claussen requested either primary or equal residential responsibility.Following the trial, the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, awarded Kolstad and Claussen equal residential responsibility for their children and ordered Claussen to pay Kolstad $157 per month in child support. The district court found that Claussen’s change in employment was motivated by a desire to parent his children and not to reduce his child support obligation. Kolstad appealed, arguing that the district court failed to make adequate findings regarding two statutory best interest factors: the developmental needs of the children and evidence of domestic violence.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and applied the clearly erroneous standard to the district court’s factual findings. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Claussen’s employment change was not intended to reduce his child support obligation. However, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment in part, finding that the district court did not make sufficient findings or provide adequate explanation regarding best interest factors (c) (the children’s developmental needs and the parents’ ability to meet those needs) and (j) (evidence of domestic violence). The Supreme Court remanded the case for further findings and clarification on those factors, instructing the district court to explain its reasoning and to clarify whether the statutory presumption regarding domestic violence applies. View "Kolstad v. Claussen" on Justia Law

Fairville Township decided to remove two culvert crossings, known as Crossings 2 and 3, from a township roadway. These culverts had existed prior to construction of the Oak Creek Drain, a flood control project built by the Wells County Water Resource District in the late 1980s, which had incorporated the culverts into its design. After the Township removed the crossings and reconstructed the roadway, the Water District determined that this constituted an obstruction to the drain and would adversely affect local agricultural land and infrastructure. The Water District ordered the Township to reconstruct the crossings, and when the Township did not comply, the District reinstalled the culverts itself.The Water District issued orders to assess the costs of reinstalling the culverts against Fairville Township, citing its statutory authority under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-51. The District concluded that the Township was responsible for the obstruction and directed Wells County to levy the assessment against the Township. Fairville Township appealed these assessment orders to the District Court of Wells County. After briefing, the district court reversed the Water District’s assessment orders, finding that the statute applied only to private landowners or tenants, not to governing bodies such as townships, and that the Water District’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s decision under a limited standard, independently considering whether the Water District acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. The Supreme Court held that N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-51 only authorizes water resource boards to assess costs against the property of a responsible landowner, and the Water District failed to establish that the Township was a landowner or that costs were assessed against its property. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s reversal of the Water District’s assessment orders. View "Fairville Township v. Wells Cty. Water Resource District" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to felony child neglect, the defendant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with three years suspended, credit for 375 days already served, supervised probation, and restitution. Following his release, the State alleged that the defendant violated multiple conditions of his probation. At a probation revocation hearing, the defendant waived his right to counsel and admitted the violations, leading the district court to revoke his probation. The court orally stated the defendant would receive credit for two years plus the time he spent in custody after being arrested on the probation violation warrant, which amounted to twenty-four days.The written order issued after the revocation hearing, however, erroneously recorded the credit for time served as “3 years and 34 days” instead of the correct “2 years and 24 days.” The State moved to correct this mistake under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, arguing it was a clerical error that conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. The District Court of McHenry County granted the State’s motion, found the original written order contained a clerical error, and issued an amended order reflecting the proper credit. The defendant appealed, arguing that the correction improperly reduced his credit for time served and conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. He also asserted his constitutional right to counsel was violated when the court did not appoint an attorney to represent him in the Rule 36 proceedings.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s orders. It held that the correction was a permissible exercise of the court’s discretion under Rule 36 to remedy a clerical error in the judgment so that it accurately reflected the oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing. The court also concluded that the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not violated because the correction of a clerical error under Rule 36 is not a critical stage of the prosecution. View "State v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

William C. Hansen and Verna Hansen, a married couple, established a revocable trust in 1997, with separate shares for each spouse and detailed distribution instructions for each share after their deaths. On the same day, William C. Hansen executed a durable power of attorney naming Verna Hansen as his agent, granting her broad authority over his property. After William C. Hansen’s death in 1999, Verna Hansen, acting as his agent under the power of attorney, amended the trust twice, altering the distribution provisions. Following the deaths of both William and Verna Hansen, a dispute arose between their descendants—on one side, Catherine Hansen Dietemann and her daughter Lauren, and on the other, William Anthony (“Tony”) Hansen—regarding the validity of these amendments and the proper distribution of the trust assets.After Bravera Wealth, the trustee, sought a judicial declaration of beneficiary rights, the District Court of Stark County granted summary judgment in favor of Tony Hansen. The district court concluded that the trust amendments made by Verna Hansen were valid, finding that the broad language in the power of attorney gave her the authority to amend the trust, and that the relevant statutory requirement for express authorization did not apply retroactively. Based on the amended trust terms, the court also applied North Dakota’s antilapse statute to determine the distribution shares among the beneficiaries.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the lower court’s interpretation of North Dakota Century Code § 59-14-02(5), which requires that any powers to amend a trust by an agent under a power of attorney must be expressly stated. The Supreme Court held that the statute applied to this proceeding because it was commenced after July 31, 2007, and that neither the trust nor the power of attorney provided the required express authorization for Verna Hansen to amend the trust. As a result, the court ruled the amendments invalid, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded for distribution according to the original trust terms. View "Matter of Hansen Trust" on Justia Law