Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mackenzie Pennington and Casey Weber, who married in 2011, have two children. In 2020, Weber initiated a divorce, and in 2021, the district court's judgment incorporated their settlement agreement, granting them equal and shared parenting responsibility with joint legal and alternating weekly physical custody. Pennington was required to exercise her parenting time in New Rockford during the school year due to the children's school location.In November 2021, Pennington moved for primary residential responsibility, citing the impracticality of the parenting schedule due to travel distance. The district court denied her motion and granted Weber's request for primary residential responsibility, modifying the parenting plan to allow Pennington parenting time on alternating weekends during the school year. In September 2024, Pennington again sought primary residential responsibility, alleging Weber's failure to meet the children's medical and educational needs. The district court denied her motion, concluding she did not demonstrate a prima facie case of a material change in circumstances adversely affecting the children.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Pennington failed to establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility. The court noted that Pennington's complaints about Weber's parenting did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances that adversely affected the children or resulted in a general decline in their condition. The court also clarified that the standard for determining a material change in circumstances does not require evidence that the children are "suffering," but rather that the change has adversely affected them or resulted in a general decline in their condition. View "Weber v. Pennington" on Justia Law

The case involves a divorce action between Tami Van Beek and Darrell Van Beek, who married in June 2007 and have three children. During the trial, both parties provided testimony and exhibits, and the court also received testimony from their children, school administrators, and Darrell's parents. The district court divided the marital estate, awarding Tami farmland and an equity payment of $700,000, while Darrell received crops, land rent, and vehicles. Tami was granted primary residential responsibility and child support based on Darrell's income of $48,000 per year. Tami was also awarded attorney’s fees.The district court's decisions were challenged by Darrell on several grounds, including the valuation and distribution of the marital estate, the exclusion of his insurance agent's testimony, the award of primary residential responsibility to Tami, the calculation of his child support obligation, and the award of attorney’s fees. The district court's distribution of marital property was reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and the court's findings were generally upheld, except for the inclusion of potential income of $198,823 in the marital estate, which was reversed and remanded for reconsideration.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case. The court held that the district court erred in including the potential income of $198,823 in the marital estate and remanded for reconsideration of the allocation of the existing marital estate. The court also remanded for consideration of whether an award of attorney’s fees and costs with respect to the appeal would result in financial hardship to Darrell and, if appropriate, the amount of any award. The court affirmed the district court's decisions regarding the distribution of marital property, the exclusion of the insurance agent's testimony, the award of primary residential responsibility, and the calculation of child support. View "Van Beek v. Van Beek" on Justia Law

Heidi Holm and Joshua Holm were married in June 2021, and Heidi filed for divorce in April 2023. The couple has no children. During the divorce proceedings, Heidi filed two motions to compel discovery. The first motion was denied, and Joshua's request for attorney's fees was also denied. The second motion was granted, and Joshua was ordered to pay Heidi's attorney's fees due to his incomplete and untimely responses to discovery requests. The district court held a two-day trial, divided the marital assets and debts, and set a valuation date for the assets.The District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, initially scheduled the trial for November 13, 2023, but it was continued. The court set a valuation date of January 1, 2024, which was incorrect as per N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1), which requires the valuation date to be sixty days before the initially scheduled trial date. Despite this error, the court's use of the agreed-to valuations by the parties rendered the error harmless.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment and orders. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joshua's request for attorney's fees, as his answer brief was untimely and his discovery responses were evasive. The court also upheld the district court's valuation of the marital assets, including the contents of Joshua's safe, the real property owned by Holm Empire Holdings, and the 2004 Chevy 2500 pickup truck. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court's valuation of X Marks the Spot Investments was within the range of evidence presented and that the division of marital property and debts was equitable. The court emphasized the district court's findings regarding Joshua's lack of credibility and attempts to hide assets. View "Holm v. Holm" on Justia Law

Suzanne Jane Nagle and Gene Murray Nagle were married and divorced twice. They first married in August 1982 and divorced in December 2018. They remarried in August 2022 and separated in February 2023. During their second marriage, Gene, who was disabled, paid most of the couple’s expenses. Suzanne, who was not working at the time of the second divorce, initiated the divorce action in June 2023.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, treated the parties’ second marriage as a long-term marriage and found that a near equal distribution of the marital estate was fair and equitable. The court awarded Suzanne property that she had previously waived her rights to in their first divorce. Gene Nagle filed a motion in limine to exclude certain testimony, which was denied. The court relied on the totality of the parties’ relationship for property distribution purposes and denied Suzanne’s request for spousal support. Gene Nagle timely appealed the court’s property distribution.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the district court’s equitable distribution of the marital estate under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by treating the second marriage as long-term and by equally dividing the marital property without sufficient evidence to support such a division. The court emphasized that the duration of the marriage refers to the marriage being dissolved and should be considered separately from any prior marriages. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s property division and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, allowing the district court to reconsider the issue of spousal support in conjunction with the property division. View "Nagle v. Nagle" on Justia Law

Kyle Zittleman and ShanaLea Bibler were married in 2010 and had one child in 2012. They divorced in 2016, with a Wyoming court granting Zittleman primary residential responsibility. Bibler filed motions to modify residential responsibility and child support in 2018 and 2020, but Zittleman retained primary responsibility. Zittleman moved to North Dakota in 2019, and Bibler followed in 2022. In 2023, Bibler again moved to modify residential responsibility, citing her relocation, Zittleman’s alleged non-compliance with a judgment, and the child's worsening demeanor.The Morton County district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2024, limiting each party to two and a half hours for their case. Bibler used all her time before cross-examining two witnesses and argued this violated her due process rights. The district court found no material change in circumstances and denied her motion. Bibler appealed, claiming the time limitation and the court's findings were erroneous.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for constitutional claims and under an abuse of discretion standard for procedural matters. The court found that the district court did not violate due process by limiting the hearing time, as both parties were notified and did not object or request additional time. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the time limitation.The Supreme Court upheld the district court's finding that there was no material change in circumstances. The court noted that Bibler's move to North Dakota, Zittleman’s adherence to the judgment, and allegations of alienation did not constitute a material change. The court also found that the district court did not err in omitting a best interests analysis, as it was not required without a material change in circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Bibler's motion to modify residential responsibility. View "Zittleman v. Bibler" on Justia Law

Sarah Shively initiated divorce proceedings against Kyle Shively, seeking primary residential responsibility for their three school-age children. The marital home, which was Kyle's family farmstead, is located in Pleasant Lake, North Dakota. During the separation, Kyle moved to Rugby, North Dakota. Both parties proposed different parenting plans, with Sarah seeking primary residential responsibility and Kyle seeking either primary or equal residential responsibility.The District Court of Benson County, Northeast Judicial District, held a two-day bench trial and awarded Sarah primary residential responsibility and the marital home. Kyle appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decisions regarding residential responsibility, parenting time, and the distribution of the marital home.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found that the district court failed to provide sufficient specificity in its findings to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the district court's findings, particularly regarding the best interest factors for awarding primary residential responsibility. The district court's findings were contradictory, and it did not adequately explain why equal residential responsibility was not considered.Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not address summer parenting time for Kyle, despite acknowledging its importance. The district court also failed to explain its decision to award the marital home to Sarah, despite the sentimental value and origin of the property being significant factors.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the court’s decisions regarding primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and property distribution. View "Shively v. Shively" on Justia Law

Sarah Knell and Catlin Kinden, who married in 2003 and have four children, divorced in October 2020. They initially agreed to share equal residential responsibility for their children, with the children spending most of the school year with Knell. Conflicts arose, particularly regarding the medical care of their two minor children, B.K. and P.K., who require medication. Kinden meticulously monitored P.K.'s diabetes care, often initiating conflicts with Knell over it. In July 2021, Kinden moved to modify residential responsibility, alleging Knell's disregard for the children's health. The district court ordered mediation, which was unsuccessful.In December 2021, Knell filed a countermotion to modify residential responsibility. The parties agreed to a parenting investigation, which did not recommend changing their equal residential responsibility. They signed a stipulation to modify the judgment, which the court adopted in September 2022. In 2023, Kinden moved to Bismarck, prompting Knell to seek primary residential responsibility, arguing that the two-year moratorium on modifications did not apply due to Kinden's relocation. Both parties made prima facie cases for modification, leading to an evidentiary hearing in July 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming the district court's decision. The court found that N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6, which governs modifications of primary residential responsibility, did not apply as there was no prior order establishing primary residential responsibility. Instead, the court made an original determination based on the best interests of the children, weighing the factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1). The court concluded that awarding Kinden primary residential responsibility was in the children's best interests, particularly due to his diligence in addressing their medical and educational needs. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the district court's findings and affirmed the second amended judgment. View "Kinden v. Kinden" on Justia Law

An unmarried couple, K.L.T. and M.O.J., filed a petition on September 27, 2024, to adopt three children who had been in their care since early 2022. The Cass County District Court denied their petition on October 8, 2024, citing North Dakota Century Code § 14-15-03(2), which the court interpreted as not permitting unmarried couples to jointly adopt. The case was subsequently dismissed.Following the dismissal, K.L.T. and M.O.J. moved for reconsideration on October 14, 2024. Although the district court found them to be suitable adoptive parents, it denied the motion for reconsideration. The court then certified a question to the North Dakota Supreme Court, asking whether an unmarried couple can adopt children under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-03(2), noting the absence of controlling precedent in North Dakota.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed whether to answer the certified question. Under Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court has the discretion to answer certified questions of law if they are determinative of the proceeding and if there is no controlling precedent. However, the court determined that answering the certified question would be purely advisory since the petition had been dismissed and the time to appeal had expired. Consequently, there was no existing case that could be resolved by answering the question.The North Dakota Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question and dismissed the proceeding. View "K.L.T. v. NDDHHS" on Justia Law

Benjamin Jones and Melanie Jones were married in 2003 and have two minor children. They resided in Glenburn, North Dakota, and purchased a modular home and surrounding acreage from Melanie's parents under a contract for deed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, payments on the contract were suspended, and no payments have been made since, leaving an outstanding debt. In March 2023, Benjamin filed for divorce. In February 2024, Melanie's father notified the parties of his intention to declare default and cancel the contract for deed. The trial was held later that month.The District Court of Renville County granted the divorce, awarded primary residential responsibility of the children to Benjamin, and divided the property and debts. The court found zero equity in the marital home due to nonpayment and the intention to foreclose. It reserved ruling on the final value of the marital home and debt consolidation loan for six months. The court awarded Melanie spousal support of $900 per month for 10 years and ordered her to pay $590 per month in child support.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the award of primary residential responsibility to Benjamin, finding no clear error in the lower court's decision. However, it reversed the lower court's reservation of ruling on the marital home and debt consolidation loan valuations, as well as the valuation of the marital home and corresponding debt without specific findings on the valuation date. The Supreme Court also found error in the child support calculation for omitting spousal support and in-kind income.The Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower court to clarify the valuation date for the marital property and debt, make specific findings if another valuation date is fair and equitable, redistribute the marital estate if valuations change, reconsider spousal support in light of any redistribution, and recalculate child support to include spousal support. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law

In 2021, Sharon Ceynar initiated a divorce action against William Ceynar. Following a bench trial, the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, granted the divorce and divided the marital estate. Sharon received $1,218,903.90 in net assets, while William received $681,827.35. The court ordered the sale of the couple's real estate and mineral interests at public auction, with 55% of the proceeds going to William and 45% to Sharon.William appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its division of the marital estate, particularly given his large inheritance. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that property distribution decisions are not reversed unless clearly erroneous. The court emphasized that the district court's findings are presumed correct and that it does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal.The Supreme Court found that the district court had properly considered the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, which include factors such as the duration of the marriage, the parties' ages, health, and financial circumstances. The district court had noted the long-term nature of the marriage and the need for both parties to have income-generating assets for retirement. Although William argued that his inheritance should result in a larger share of the marital estate, the court found that the district court had appropriately considered this factor and had not erred in its division.The Supreme Court also addressed William's contention that the district court erred in ordering the sale of the real property, noting that the court had the authority to do so to achieve an equitable distribution. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the property division was equitable and not clearly erroneous. View "Ceynar v. Ceynar" on Justia Law