Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lavern Behm appealed a judgment ordering Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (“MDU”) to pay him $17,443 in attorney’s fees and costs incurred in an eminent domain action. Behm argued his constitutional rights were violated in the eminent domain action, and the district court erred by failing to award him some of the attorney’s fees he requested. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "MDU v. Behm" on Justia Law

Gail Howard, Bruce Lindvig, and Milton Lindvig, personally and as Successor Personal Representative to the Estate of Ralph H. Lindvig, (together “the estate of Ralph Lindvig”) appealed a judgment entered in consolidated formal probate proceedings. In 2007, due to financial concerns related to paying for Ralph's care, his wife Dorothy Lindvig, acting as Ralph's attorney in fact, sold portions of Ralph's interests in the land he received from his parents to Milton Lindvig, Ralph's brother. The transfers were made by two warranty deeds, each of which severed the minerals and reserved them to Ralph and Dorothy as joint tenants. In May of 2007, Dorothy, again acting as Ralph's attorney in fact, conveyed the Wattam land to herself by warranty deed. When Ralph died, Dorothy was the personal representative of his estate. After her death in 2009, she was replaced by Milton. Dorothy died intestate, survived by a brother and her sister, Patricia Jellum, who was the personal representative of Dorothy's estate. The estate of Ralph Lindvig filed a petition in Dorothy's probate proceedings to set aside the intestate distribution of the minerals she severed and the Wattam land she conveyed to herself. The estate argued the transfers were beyond Dorothy's authority because they diminished the size of his estate and were not approved by a court, all in contravention of the power of attorney’s gifting provisions. The parties stipulated to consolidating the two probates as formal administrations. The probate court determined Dorothy did not breach her fiduciary duties by engaging in improper self-dealing. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the probate court's judgment. View "Estate of Lindvig" on Justia Law

W.A. appealed a district court order finding P.K. the father of V.G.A. and awarding P.K. and W.A. equal decision-making responsibility, P.K. primary residential responsibility, W.A. parenting time, and ordering W.A. to pay child support. W.A. argued the district court did not follow proper procedure in adjudicating primary residential responsibility to P.K. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota, et al. v. P.K." on Justia Law

This action concerned child support for the parties’ child, J.T.G. A Nevada court granted Vickie Lenard (aka Gooss) primary residential responsibility for J.T.G. The court awarded Jeffrey Gooss parenting time and required him to pay child support at $350.00 per month, which included $50.00 in child support arrears. In the event Lenard relocated from Nevada to Colorado, Gooss’s child support obligation would be waived, and he would only bear travel expenses for himself and J.T.G. However, Lenard never relocated to Colorado, but she did relocate on multiple occasions to several other states with J.T.G. North Dakota requested a modification of child support when Lenard moved to North Dakota in 2019. Gooss challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to modify the child support originally ordered by the Nevada court. Gooss argued travel expenses were part of the parenting plan, and North Dakota lacked jurisdiction to modify the child custody arrangement issued by another state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). Gooss also challenged the calculation of child support, argued imposing child support was inequitable, and claimed a deviation for travel expenses was necessary. The district court held a hearing on the motions where it heard testimony and considered evidence and ultimately modified the child support obligation. Finding the North Dakota trial court had jurisdiction to modify the obligation, and no other reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the modification. View "Gooss v. Gooss, et al." on Justia Law

Timothy Hajicek appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to driving under the influence. Hajicek claimed the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because a University of North Dakota police officer acting outside his jurisdiction was without official capacity and without the official power to seize. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the UND police officer was lawfully responding to a request for assistance under N.D.C.C. 44-08-20(3). View "North Dakota v. Hajicek" on Justia Law

Cody Muscha appealed a domestic violence protection order, arguing he was provided with the wrong date for the hearing, therefore, he was deprived of his due process right to be heard. In affirming the district court's order, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that contrary to Muscha’s argument, the requirements of procedural due process were satisfied. Notice was provided to Muscha on January 8, 2020, well in advance of the January 16 hearing. The notice was reasonably calculated to inform him of a proceeding which had the potential to adversely affect his legal interests. Muscha’s failure to recognize the discrepancy between what he was allegedly told by the deputy and what the hearing notice stated, and his failure to appear at the hearing, could not be imputed to the district court, even assuming Muscha was provided with an incorrect date. Therefore, the district court did not err by issuing the permanent domestic violence protection order. View "Krolik v. Muscha" on Justia Law

Levi Conry was charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving damage to a motor vehicle. Conry entered into a plea agreement with the State and pleaded guilty. As part of the agreement Conry received a deferred imposition of sentence on the charge of leaving the scene of an accident involving damage to a motor vehicle. The district court accepted the plea agreement and imposed conditions on Conry according to the terms of the plea agreement. The order deferring imposition of sentence stated: “The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine restitution within 90 days.” The State subsequently submitted a statement seeking $11,352.93 in restitution. Conry requested a hearing after which the district court entered an order denying the restitution claim in its entirety. The court found the terms of the plea agreement allowed the court to order no restitution. The State appealed that order. Finding that the State had no statutory right to appeal a restitution order in a criminal case, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the State's appeal and dismissed it. View "North Dakota v. Conry" on Justia Law

Amy Vaagen appealed an order revoking her unsupervised probation and imposing a period of confinement. In 2018, Vaagen pleaded guilty to preventing arrest, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The district court deferred imposition of Vaagen’s sentence. The court also ordered Vaagen to submit to random drug urinalysis testing once a week for the duration of her probation. The urinalysis testing condition was orally announced during sentencing but was not included in the original order. In 2019, the district court sua sponte issued an amended order deferring imposition of sentence. The amended order contained the urinalysis condition. Months later, the State petitioned to revoke Vaagen's probation based on alleged violations of the urinalysis testing condition. After a third petition, the court revoked Vaagen’s unsupervised probation. On December 18, 2019, the court sentenced Vaagen to a period of confinement. She appealed, arguing the district court improperly amended the order under which her probation was revoked. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the revocation. View "North Dakota v. Vaagen" on Justia Law

Derek Wisham appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2014, Wisham was charged with gross sexual imposition and assault. On December 21, 2015, Wisham pled guilty to a charge of sexual imposition, a class B felony, and assault, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to ten years of incarceration with all but four years suspended for two years on the sexual imposition charge and one year straight time on the assault charge, with credit for time served on both counts. The State moved for summary judgment on Wisham's application for relief; Wisham failed to timely respond to the State's request. The North Dakota Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed dismissal of his application. View "Wisham v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Marcus Polk was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. He appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury supported Polk’s conviction for aggravated assault. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded testimony from three Fargo police officers. View "North Dakota v. Polk" on Justia Law