Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Jacob Hollingsworth filed for divorce from Katie Hollingsworth after nearly five years of marriage. They had one child and stipulated to a parenting plan, leaving the division of marital property, spousal support, and attorney’s fees as the issues for trial. Katie entered the marriage with significant debt and a house, while Jacob had a house, personal assets, and business interests. They kept separate finances except for a joint account for shared expenses. Jacob paid off much of Katie’s debt during the marriage.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, heard testimony from both parties, two valuation experts, and Jacob’s father. The court awarded Jacob 92% and Katie 8% of the marital assets, denied Katie’s requests for spousal support and attorney’s fees, and allowed Jacob’s valuation expert to testify despite a late report disclosure. Katie appealed the decisions.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It upheld the district court’s decision to allow the expert testimony, noting that the court offered a continuance, which Katie declined. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of the late disclosure.The Supreme Court also affirmed the district court’s valuation and division of the marital estate, finding the valuations were within the range of evidence presented and the unequal distribution was justified by the parties’ financial contributions and spending habits. The court upheld the use of the agreed valuation date for assets and found no error in including interim order funds in the marital estate.The court found no clear error in denying spousal support, as both parties were capable of self-support. It also upheld the denial of attorney’s fees, noting Katie’s sufficient income and excessive spending habits. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects. View "Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth" on Justia Law

In April 2022, H.H., the mother of A.E.E., was arrested for the murder of A.E.E.'s father. H.H. provided written consent for A.E.E. to be placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, A.V. and E.V., as emergency co-guardians. The maternal aunt and uncle filed a petition to be appointed as emergency and permanent co-guardians, which the paternal grandparents, K.B. and T.B., opposed, seeking guardianship themselves. The juvenile court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as emergency co-guardians pending a full hearing. After a full hearing, the court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians, and the paternal grandparents did not appeal.Following H.H.'s conviction for murder and her life sentence without parole, the maternal aunt and uncle sought to relocate out of state with A.E.E. The paternal grandparents opposed this motion and sought to remove the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians. The juvenile court granted the relocation and denied the motion to remove the co-guardians, finding that the reasons for the original appointment had not changed and that it was in A.E.E.'s best interests to remain under their guardianship.The paternal grandparents appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its decision, citing H.H.'s conviction and alleging false testimony by the maternal aunt and uncle. They also requested a presumption against appointing family members of a parent convicted of murdering the other parent as guardians. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to modify the guardianship, concluding that the paternal grandparents failed to prove that removal or modification of the guardianship was in A.E.E.'s best interests. View "Interest of A.E.E." on Justia Law

Jennie Olson and Jonathan Olson were married on August 22, 2020. Two days before the wedding, Jonathan presented Jennie with a premarital agreement stipulating that in the event of a divorce, each party would retain ownership of their separate property. Jennie signed the agreement the same day. At the time, Jennie had a net worth of $386,917, while Jonathan had a net worth of $11,591,000. The couple separated in July 2022, and Jennie initiated divorce proceedings.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, bifurcated the trial, first addressing the validity of the premarital agreement. The court found the agreement valid and enforceable and determined that the parties had no marital property. Jennie appealed, arguing the district court erred in its findings and abused its discretion in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify and in not admitting a text message as evidence.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in finding the premarital agreement valid and enforceable. The court found that Jennie had access to independent legal representation, received adequate financial disclosure, voluntarily consented to the agreement, and that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the rebuttal witness to testify or in refusing to admit the text message as evidence.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied both parties' requests for attorney’s fees and costs, citing the premarital agreement's provision that each party is responsible for their own legal expenses. View "Olson v. Olson" on Justia Law

Jason Bott and Suzanne Bott married in 2008 and have two minor children. In November 2022, Suzanne initiated a divorce action. They entered into a stipulated settlement agreement, and a judgment reflecting the terms was entered in June 2023. Jason was awarded all real estate, including the marital home and a rental property, and was required to pay Suzanne $425,000 in two installments. Shortly after the judgment, Jason asked Suzanne to alter the terms due to financial difficulties. They signed a handwritten document without their attorneys' knowledge, agreeing that Suzanne would retain the marital home and Jason would not have to make the cash payment. Suzanne later rescinded the agreement, moved out, and filed a motion for contempt against Jason for not making the first payment.The District Court of Cavalier County denied Jason's motion to amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), finding that the parties intended to cancel the agreement. The court ordered Jason to make the cash payments as originally stipulated. Jason appealed, arguing the agreement was a valid contract and Suzanne failed to prove its rescission.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Jason's motion. The court noted that Jason did not argue the original stipulation was the result of mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, nor did he argue it was unconscionable. The court found that Jason did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the judgment. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Jason failed to show the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in denying his motion. View "Bott v. Bott" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Edison appealed an amended divorce judgment that awarded primary residential responsibility of his two children to Signe Edison. He argued that the district court was biased and erred in calculating his income and finding him underemployed for child support purposes. The case had previously been remanded by the North Dakota Supreme Court due to findings of gender bias and errors in income calculation.The district court, on remand, held a status conference and received stipulated evidence, including wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The court then issued orders reaffirming the award of primary residential responsibility to Signe Edison and finding Jeffrey Edison underemployed. Jeffrey Edison appealed again, claiming the district court maintained its bias and failed to follow the Supreme Court's instructions.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no evidence of judicial bias or prejudgment by the district court. The court noted that adverse rulings alone do not indicate bias and that the district court had eliminated the improper findings related to breastfeeding. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of primary residential responsibility to Signe Edison.Regarding the income calculation, the Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in subtracting self-employment losses from Jeffrey Edison's gross income and failing to include refundable tax credits. However, these errors were deemed harmless as they did not affect the outcome. The court concluded that Jeffrey Edison was underemployed regardless of the errors in income calculation and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Edison v. Edison" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Sharon Mitzel, Alan Mitzel, and Eric Mitzel, filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Vogel Law Firm and Jerilynn Brantner Adams, alleging negligence in a divorce action involving the disposition of land known as Section 19. Fred and Sharon Mitzel, who were married and had two sons, formed a family limited partnership and conveyed their farm, including Section 19, to it. During their divorce, they agreed that Section 19 would go to Fred, subject to deeding it to their sons upon his death. However, a subsequent quiet title action determined that the family partnership owned Section 19, nullifying the divorce judgment's property distribution.The District Court of Cass County granted partial summary judgment dismissing Alan and Eric Mitzel’s claims, ruling they lacked standing as non-clients to sue for legal malpractice. The court also granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing Sharon Mitzel’s claims, concluding she presented no evidence that she gave up any marital property to secure the agreement for Section 19 to be deeded to her sons upon Fred’s death. Sharon Mitzel’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs incurred due to Vogel’s alleged malpractice was also dismissed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Alan and Eric Mitzel’s claims, agreeing they lacked standing. The court also upheld the measure of damages used by the lower court, which was based on what Sharon Mitzel gave up to secure Section 19 for her sons. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in determining Sharon Mitzel presented no evidence of incurring attorney’s fees and costs due to Vogel’s alleged malpractice. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Mitzel v. Vogel Law Firm" on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Heather Zins share a child, A.J.O., born in 2004. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Rath was ordered to pay child support. A.J.O. turned 18 in November 2022, ending Rath's ongoing support obligation, but he had accrued arrears. Rath was served with an order to show cause for civil contempt due to non-payment. After an evidentiary hearing, a judicial referee found Rath in contempt and ordered him to make monthly payments towards his arrears, with a suspended 20-day jail sentence contingent on a future hearing.Rath sought review by the District Court of Burleigh County, which adopted the judicial referee's findings. Rath appealed, arguing violations of his right to counsel, errors in child support calculations, and that the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits the State's ability to collect more than fifty percent of his income. He also claimed the defense of laches and third-party standing should prevent enforcement of his obligations.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case under a clearly erroneous standard. The court held that Rath's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the contempt hearing did not result in immediate incarceration, and procedural safeguards were followed. The court also found that Rath's child support obligation continued despite temporary custody by the division of juvenile services and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support arrearages. Additionally, the court ruled that the State and Zins have standing to collect arrears even after the child reached the age of majority, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act does not limit the State's collection efforts in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Burleigh County Social Service Board v. Rath" on Justia Law

Jason Anderson and Olivia Foss, who share a child but were never married, were involved in a legal dispute over modifications to their parenting plan. Foss sought sole decision-making responsibility, required Anderson to take their child to extracurricular activities during his parenting time, and sought reimbursement for health insurance premiums. Anderson countered with a motion to modify child support. The district court modified the parenting plan and child support obligations after a two-day evidentiary hearing.The district court set the commencement date for the modified child support to September 2023, rather than September 2022, without providing an explanation. Anderson appealed, arguing the date should be from when he filed the motion. The court also calculated Foss’s child support obligation based on a partial year’s income and a 32-hour work week without sufficient findings to support these calculations. Additionally, the court ordered Anderson to reimburse Foss for out-of-pocket medical expenses but did not explain how it arrived at the reimbursement amount.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s requirement for Anderson to take the child to extracurricular activities during his parenting time, clarifying that this did not modify his parenting time. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not provide sufficient findings to support the commencement date for the modified child support, the calculation of Foss’s income, and the reimbursement amount for medical expenses. The court also required further explanation for removing all day-to-day decision-making from Anderson.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed parts of the district court’s decision, reversed others, and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to provide additional findings within 30 days. View "Anderson v. Foss" on Justia Law

Lisa Schoenberg and Joshua Schoenberg, parents of two minor children, divorced in 2017 and agreed to share joint and equal residential responsibility. In November 2023, Lisa moved to modify this arrangement, seeking primary residential responsibility. She supported her motion with declarations and exhibits, including a declaration from an attorney who interviewed the children. Joshua opposed the motion, arguing Lisa failed to establish a prima facie case and objected to the attorney’s declaration and letter as hearsay.The District Court of Cass County struck the attorney’s declaration and letter, concluding they contained hearsay and did not meet the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The court also denied Lisa’s motion to modify residential responsibility, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case. Lisa’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The court held that the attorney’s declaration and letter were correctly excluded as they were not more probative than affidavits or declarations from the children themselves. The court also found that Lisa failed to establish a prima facie case for modification. Although she demonstrated material changes in circumstances, such as the children’s counseling and Joshua’s significant other moving in, she did not show these changes adversely affected the children or led to a general decline in their condition. Consequently, the court concluded that Lisa did not meet the necessary legal standard to warrant an evidentiary hearing for modifying residential responsibility. View "Schoenberg v. Schoenberg" on Justia Law

Philip Ritter appealed a divorce judgment, challenging the district court's decisions on the valuation and distribution of the marital estate, spousal support, and child support obligations. Philip and Megan Ritter were married in 2008 and have three minor children. Megan was the primary income earner until 2014, after which Philip's income fluctuated significantly. Megan filed for divorce in July 2022, and the trial was held in June 2023. The district court awarded Megan primary residential responsibility for the children, spousal support of $2,000 per month, and child support of $4,023 per month.The district court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, valued the marital home at $328,540, incorporating both parties' valuation methods and the cost of a kitchen remodel. The court allocated the Bank of America Platinum Plus Credit Card debt to Philip, finding he failed to account for part of the debt. The court also included an indemnity clause for joint debts, deciding not to require refinancing of the marital home mortgage due to Megan's inability to refinance.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no clear error in the district court's valuation and distribution of the marital estate. The court affirmed the spousal support award, noting the significant disparity in the parties' incomes and Megan's career sacrifices. The court also upheld the child support calculation, which averaged Philip's fluctuating income over three years, resulting in a monthly obligation of $4,023 for three children.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the findings on property valuation, spousal support, and child support were not clearly erroneous and were supported by the evidence. View "Ritter v. Ritter" on Justia Law