Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Divide County, North Dakota appealed judgments dismissing its complaints against Stateline Services, Inc., Power Energy Logistics, LLC, and five individuals (collectively, “Defendants”), which alleged they operated overweight vehicles on restricted roads. In 2019, Divide County imposed certain weight restrictions on county and township roads due to wet conditions. Truck drivers for Stateline Services and Power Energy Logistics were pulled over on township roads and cited for operating overweight vehicles. The County filed this civil action against the Defendants for statutory damages under N.D.C.C. 39-12- 17. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the complaints, concluding the County failed to provide sufficient public notice of the weight restrictions through a uniform county permit system, and failed to erect and maintain signs at each end of the highway. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Divide County v. Stateline Service, et al." on Justia Law

Ralph Fischer appealed from an order denying his request for attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. 27-08.1-04. In February 2018, Fischer and Darin Hoyt executed a Cattle Share Lease. Under the terms of the lease, Fischer rented pasture land to Hoyt. In July 2019, Fischer sued Hoyt in small claims court arguing he was entitled to $15,000 for Hoyt’s failure to pay pasture rent in 2018. Hoyt removed the case to district court and filed an answer and counterclaim, asserting Fischer breached terms of the agreement. Fischer answered the counterclaim and requested attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. 27-08.1-04. In February 2020, Fischer received leave of court to amend his complaint and increased his alleged damages to $25,000. After a bench trial, the district court found both parties breached the lease in different respects. Pertinent here, the district court found Hoyt breached the lease by failing to pay rent in 2018. The district court denied Fischer’s request for attorney’s fees, finding "the claims and counterclaims in this matter were far too complex for small claims court and would have been dismissed without prejudice to refile in district court." To the North Dakota Supreme Court, Fischer argues the district court erred in denying his request because he is the prevailing plaintiff after removal from small claims court. Fischer also argued he was entitled to attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal. The Supreme Court agreed, and reversed and remanded for an award of Fischer’s attorney’s fees in the district court action and on appeal. View "Fischer v. Hoyt" on Justia Law

Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. and WISCO, Inc. appealed a judgment entered in favor of Murex Petroleum Corporation in a personal injury case. As between WISCO and Murex, the case presented the question of whether a defense and indemnification provision in a contract applied. As between Cudd and Murex, the case presented a question of whether the district court abused its discretion when it sanctioned Cudd for spoliation of evidence. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred as a matter of law when it granted summary judgment for Murex determining the defense and indemnification provision applied. The Supreme Court also concluded the trial court abused its discretion when it sanctioned Cudd. Therefore, the Court reversed those portions of the judgment. Because the sanctions included an adverse inference instruction against Cudd at trial that may have affected the jury’s fault determination, the case was remanded for a new trial on the issue of fault apportionment. View "Simmons v. Cudd Pressure Control, et al." on Justia Law

Rodney Friesz appealed a district court’s order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Friesz was convicted of manslaughter and arson following a jury trial in February 2016. In 2017, Friesz appealed his convictions based on insufficiency of the evidence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In May 2018, Friesz filed his first application for post-conviction relief. The application was denied and affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court. In May 2020, Friesz filed a second application for post-conviction relief alleging: ineffective assistance of trial counsel; denial of effective assistance of counsel on his post-conviction appeal with appellate counsel; insufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction; denial of his fourth amendment rights regarding the warrantless search of the residence, the seizure of a firearm, and the failure of the court to grant his motion to suppress; and failure to disclose DNA evidence by the prosecution. The district court dismissed the second application for post-conviction relief. In March 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the court’s denial and remanded the case to allow Friesz the 14 days to respond to the State’s motion for summary dismissal. On remand, Friesz was given additional time, well over 30 days, to respond. The district court again dismissed the second application for post-conviction relief, finding: Friesz’s application was filed well beyond the two-year statute of limitations, and neither his application nor his response to the State’s motion identified any competent evidence to support his allegation that the State failed to disclose DNA evidence. The court found the hearsay statement contained in his response was not competent evidence. Further, the court reasoned it could not determine that the newly discovered DNA evidence, when reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that Friesz did not engage in the criminal conduct, “especially given the fact that the jury was presented with an interview in which [Friesz] confessed to the crimes.” Appealing the district court's second dismissal, Friesz argued the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Finding no reversible error in this second dismissal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Friesz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Michael Pomarleau appealed a divorce judgment and amended divorce judgment. On appeal, Michael challenged the calculation of Tanya Pomarleau’s income for child support obligations, the allocation of child tax credits, allowing an off-set to Tanya's equity payment, and the valuation of various items of property. Tanya cross-appealed, arguing the district court erred in failing to make an adjustment to the net marital estate for expenses incurred by the parties during their separation and in calculating the royalty payments received by the parties during the separation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, concluding the district court did not err in distribution, accounting, and valuation of the net marital estate, or in its allocation of the child tax credits. The Court reversed in part, concluding Michael's income was overstated and Tanya's income was understated, and reversed and remanded for recalculation of the parties’ income for child support purposes. View "Pomarleau v. Pomarleau, et al." on Justia Law

Charles Mayland appealed his conviction for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence. Mayland entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argued he was read the implied consent advisory before being arrested in violation of N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(2), and the statutory remedy for the violation was the exclusion of evidence. Because the statutory exclusion of evidence provided within N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) was limited to the proof of the refusal to submit to testing in administrative proceedings, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Mayland" on Justia Law

Donna Wald petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and issue a writ of supervision directing the district court to vacate an order denying her demand for a change of judge and to grant the demand. Donna and Gerard Wald divorced in 2019. The Honorable Daniel Narum was the presiding judge in the divorce action. Donna was awarded hay bales and other assets in the property distribution. After entry of the divorce judgment, Donna moved for contempt or in the alternative for redistribution of property, claiming she was unable to retrieve the hay bales awarded to her, and Gerard refused to turn the bales over. The district court denied her motion. Donna appealed, and the property distribution and denial of the post-judgment motion were affirmed on appeal. In 2021, Donna sued Gerard for unjust enrichment and tortious conversion, alleging the hay bales awarded to her in the divorce judgment were worth $242,216; she had not received any of the hay bales; Gerard kept the bales for his own use or sold them for his own gain; and she was deprived of the value, use, and benefit of the bales. She requested the district court to award her $242,000 in damages. Judge Narum was assigned to the case, and Donna filed a demand for a change of judge. Donna argued she complied with the statutory requirements for a change of judge and the court erred by denying her request. The North Dakota Supreme Court denied Donna's petition, concluding the district court did not err when it denied the demand for a change of judge. View "Wald v. Hovey, et al." on Justia Law

Phillip Armstrong appealed a judgment dismissing his amended complaint. The district court granted dismissal of the amended complaint after finding Armstrong had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In 1996, Armstrong filed a surety bond with the North Dakota Industrial Commission when he became the operator of several oil wells on private land. In 2001, Armstrong also began operating wells on federal lands. Armstrong was engaged with federal authorities in formulating a reclamation plan for the federal lands. The wells were not producing oil, and Armstrong requested a release of his surety bond filed with the Commission. The Commission conditioned the release of the bond on Armstrong performing a geoprobe assessment of the wells, which Armstrong refused. Armstrong thereafter filed a complaint in the district court seeking release of his bond. The court ultimately concluded Armstrong's claims were barred by his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, rejected Armstrong’s argument state law did not apply because of federal preemption, and entered a judgment dismissing the action. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded federal regulations did not preempt the application of N.D.C.C. ch. 38-08, Armstrong failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the court properly dismissed the action. View "Armstrong v. Helms" on Justia Law

Clark Beach appealed a district court order denying his petition for formal probate of a holographic will. Clark was the brother of Skip Beach (“decedent”). The decedent lived in Golden Valley County, North Dakota. He was survived by seven siblings and one daughter. The will at issue was submitted to informal probate, and co-personal representatives were appointed. Clark filed a petition for formal probate of the will. The purported holographic will left everything the decedent owned to Clark. The court entered its order denying the petition for formal probate of the holographic will. The court found the signature “Skip Beach” on the proposed holographic will was the decedent’s signature based on the evidence. The court held the clause “Everything I own” was a material portion and was not in the decedent’s handwriting. The court reasoned that the clause appeared to have been written in different ink, was lighter in appearance, and was slanted different than the rest of the document. Additionally, the court found the clause was smaller in text and was written in only printed letters while other portions of the document use a mix of cursive and printed letters. The court stated the testimony given by Clark Beach, his siblings, and others did not change the court’s finding and stated “[n]one of these individuals are handwriting experts, and none of them ever saw this purported will before Skip’s death.” The court held that Clark Beach failed to meet his burden of proof that a material portion of the document was in the testator’s handwriting as required by law. Clark argued the district court erred in finding the material portions of the holographic will were not in the testator’s handwriting. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the petition for formal probate. View "Estate of Beach" on Justia Law

Shane Lance Yates and Amy Jo Yates (“Petitioners”) appealed district court orders denying their petitions for name changes and requests for reconsideration. They argued the district court erred in concluding their current names and the names requested were the same names. Petitioners sought to change their respective names from “SHANE LANCE YATES” (in all uppercase letters) to “Shane Lance Yates” and “AMY JO YATES” (in all uppercase letters) to “Amy Jo Yates.” They requested the changes to “terminate the guardian-ward relationship, and to distinguish from all other aliases, correct any mistakes, errors or identity confusion that exists in relation to the ALL CAPS STATE CREATED NAME.” The district court denied the petitions under res judicata because the Petitioners had previously filed identical name change petitions, which had been denied by the court, and they did not seek to change from one name to another and the requested change would not affect any action or legal proceeding or other right, title, or interest, as was the stated purpose. The Petitioners argue the district court erred in concluding their current names and the names requested were the same names. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding Petitioners offered no authority or reasoned argument that there was any legal significance to the capitalization of their names. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitions. View "Matter of Shane Lance Yates" on Justia Law