Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Terry George appealed a domestic violence protection order entered against him, claiming the district court erred, without properly explaining the factual basis for its decision, in finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported that actual or imminent domestic violence had or would occur. Nicole Lindstaedt and George dated for approximately four years. They lived together and had a child in common. In February 2020, Lindstaedt petitioned for a domestic violence protection order against George, alleging he choked her, punched her, threatened to kill her, and forced her to have sex with him. After a hearing, the district court found George had committed domestic violence and issued a protection order against him. The order prohibited George from having contact with Lindstaedt for two years. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s finding of domestic violence was not induced by an erroneous view of the law, nor was the Court left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. The Supreme Court's review of the record showed Lindstaedt presented sufficient evidence for the district court to find domestic violence by recent physical harm and nonconsensual sex. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the domestic violence protection order. View "Lindstaedt v. George" on Justia Law

This was the second appeal involving this matter. In the first appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s finding that there was a confidential relationship between Richard Twete and Clinton Mullin, and that Mullin committed a breach of trust, but the Court reversed an attorney’s fees award to Twete against Mullin and remanded “for further consideration and explanation of the legal basis authorizing the award of attorney fees in this case.” On remand, the parties briefed and argued whether the district court should award Twete his attorney’s fees. In March of 2020, the district court again granted Twete’s attorney’s fees request. Mullin appealed that order, arguing the district court abused its discretion through misapplication and misinterpretation of the law. To this, the Supreme Court agreed: the district court misinterpreted the law and abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded again for further proceedings. View "Twete v. Mullin, et al." on Justia Law

In 2007 a jury found Timler Everett guilty of gross sexual imposition. Everett appealed a district court order denying his petition for postconviction relief based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. Everett argued the trial court erred in denying his petition and dismissing his related motions. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the district court’s current order as denying Everett leave to file additional motions. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable. Therefore, the Court dismissed Everett’s appeal. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Discover Bank (Discover) appealed a district court order denying its motion for judgment and dismissing the case. Discover sued Bryan Hornbacher, alleging he was indebted to it on a credit card debt for $14,695.13. The parties entered into a stipulation and consent. The stipulation provided an acknowledgment by Hornbacher that he had been served with the summons and complaint and an admission that he had no defenses to the allegations in the complaint. Hornbacher consented to entry of judgment in the amount of $14,695.13 in exchange for Discover’s agreement to accept $10,080.00 payable over three years as full satisfaction of the judgment, and to forego execution on the judgment unless there were a default in the agreed-upon payment schedule. In its order, the trial court found that “[p]laintiff files a stipulation stating it will not move for judgment unless the terms of the agreement are [breached].” The North Dakota Supreme Court found this was an error, as was the trial court's focus on the lack of default under the stipulation having occurred: "Discover was not moving to execute the judgment, but rather was, by affidavit, moving for judgment to be entered against Hornbacher pursuant to the stipulation. The court misread the stipulation and misapplied the law." Because the plain language of the stipulation provided for judgment against Hornbacher to be entered, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment. View "Discover Bank v. Hornbacher" on Justia Law

Riley Kuntz appealed the district court’s default judgment entered in his favor. Kuntz sued Ashlynn Leiss and Joseph Westbrook for trespass and theft of his cat trap. Neither Leiss nor Westbrook answered the complaint or otherwise appeared. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted default judgment in favor of Kuntz. The court found a trespass and conversion of the cat trap had occurred. The court awarded Kuntz a money judgment for conversion of the cat trap, but found he did not suffer any actual damages as a result of the trespass. Kuntz argues the district court erred by denying his damages for trespass. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kuntz v. Leiss, et al." on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Kelly and Debra Perhus appealed from a district court judgment quieting title to disputed property in Kevin and Angela McCarvel. Kelly Perhus was the record title owner of the property. The court found the disputed parcel was .41 acres in size. The McCarvels owned the property adjacent to the disputed parcel and the Perhuses’ property. The McCarvels purchased their property in 2003. The trial court traced ownership of the McCarvel property back to 1992. The disputed parcel was set off from the rest of the Perhus property due to road construction predating 1992. The court found the McCarvels “maintained a dike, planted trees, mowed the grass and maintained a driveway across the disputed property.” The court ultimately held the McCarvels met their claim for adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. It also found the McCarvels met all the elements for boundary by acquiescence. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "McCarvel, et al. v. Perhus, et al." on Justia Law

Three Aces Properties LLC appealed, and United Rentals (North America), Inc., cross-appealed a judgment and orders denying their motions to amend the judgment. In 2017, Three Aces sued United Rentals for breach of contract and waste. Three Aces claimed United Rentals breached the lease by failing to pay rent after it vacated the property, failing to maintain and repair the parking area, and failing to maintain and repair the premises. Three Aces alleged United Rentals’ use of the premises resulted in destruction of the asphalt parking area and damages to the building and other areas of the property. Three Aces claimed United Rentals attempted to repair the parking area by replacing the asphalt paving with scoria, the City of Williston notified the parties that replacement of the asphalt with scoria violated zoning ordinances, and the parties disagreed about which party had an obligation to repair the parking area. Three Aces argued the district court erred by failing to award it damages for its breach of contract claims. United Rentals argued the court erred in dismissing its breach of contract and constructive eviction claim. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Three Aces Properties v. United Rentals" on Justia Law

Cody Atkins appealed a district court order denying his motion to vacate a criminal judgment and withdraw his plea of guilty. In June 2015, Atkins pled guilty to violating an order prohibiting contact, a class A misdemeanor. Atkins did not appeal the criminal judgment entered following his guilty plea. On appeal, Atkins’ counsel sought permission to file an “Anders” brief or, in the alternative, permission to withdraw as Atkins’ counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court denied the request to file an Anders brief, granted the motion to withdraw as Atkins’ counsel, and ordered a schedule for additional filings. The Court has held previously that the procedures set forth in "Anders" did not apply to North Dakota law because, under the state constitution and statutes, an appeal was a matter of right which eliminated the need for an Anders proceeding. In light of the representation of Atkins’ defense counsel that the appeal lacked merit and Atkins’ own request for new counsel, the Court granted the request to withdraw as counsel. Atkins was given time to submit a request for the appointment of appellate counsel. View "Atkins v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Dustin Sackenreuter appealed after his conditional guilty plea to refusing to take a chemical breath test. He argued that the implied consent advisory he received was insufficient under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f), that subsection (1)(f) was unconstitutionally void for vagueness, that subsection (1)(f) was ambiguous and should be interpreted in his favor, and that his special jury instructions should not have been rejected. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Sackenreuter" on Justia Law

Amber Sather appealed a trial court judgment in hers and Adam Sather's divorce, a judgment that included a parenting plan for the parties’ children. She argued the district court erred by failing to include certain parenting plan provisions in the judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court found section 14-09-30, N.D.C.C., required all parenting plans, including plans stipulated to and adopted by the court, to contain provisions regarding decision-making responsibility, dispute resolution, transportation and exchanges, and summer parenting time; or an explanation as to why the provisions were not included. The parenting plan here did not include these provisions or explain why they were not included. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred by adopting the parties’ parenting plan without either all of the information in N.D.C.C. section 14-09-30(2) being included, or after considering the best interests of the children as required by N.D.C.C. section 14-09- 30(1), providing its own findings regarding the same. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Sather v. Sather" on Justia Law