Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Glenvin Albrecht ("Glenvin") appealed, and Mark Albrecht ("Mark"), the personal representative of the estate ("the Estate") of Sharleen Albrecht ("Sharleen"), cross-appealed orders in an informal probate denying Glenvin's claims against the Estate. Glenvin argued that the district court's decision to deny Glenvin a recovery of jointly held marital assets transferred by Sharleen to the parties' son, Mark, should be reversed because, prior to Sharleen's death, she transferred the assets in violation of restraining provisions in a pending divorce proceeding. Glenvin further contended the district court abused its discretion in denying Glenvin's request for a recovery under principles of equity and its finding that Sharleen had not engaged in economic misconduct during prior divorce proceedings was clearly erroneous. The Estate argued that the district court improperly extended the time to commence an action against the Estate and erred as a matter of law in determining that Glenvin held the status of a surviving spouse with regard to the Estate. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order holding that Glenvin was a surviving spouse, denying Glenvin's request for contempt, the district court's order denying Glenvin's request for equitable relief and the district court's order denying Glenvin's request for relief from Sharleen's economic waste. View "Estate of Albrecht" on Justia Law

Jason Tuhy appealed a divorce judgment distributing marital property and awarding spousal support and attorney's fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's distribution of the parties' remainder interests in property and award of spousal support were not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion when awarding attorney's fees. View "Tuhy v. Tuhy" on Justia Law

Jason Tuhy appealed a divorce judgment distributing marital property and awarding spousal support and attorney's fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's distribution of the parties' remainder interests in property and award of spousal support were not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion when awarding attorney's fees. View "Tuhy v. Tuhy" on Justia Law

Jeremy White appealed a district court order denying his motions for relief from a judgment relating to primary residential responsibility and for contempt against Cassie Loibl. White and Loibl had one child together, born in 2015. In March 2016, the State sued White to decide issues of child support, health insurance and who could claim the child for income tax purposes. White was incarcerated when the State filed its complaint. The Barnes County Sheriff personally served White with the complaint at the Barnes County Correctional Facility. Loibl moved to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Loibl served White with the motion by mailing it to the Barnes County Correctional Facility and two other addresses in Valley City. White did not respond to either the State's complaint or Loibl's motion. The district court entered a judgment awarding Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility of the child. The court awarded White supervised parenting time and ordered him to pay $575 per month in child support. In February 2017, White moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and for contempt against Loibl. White claimed he did not respond to Loibl's motion because he did not receive the motion. He stated he was released from jail on March 4, 2016, and did not reside at the addresses to which Loibl mailed the motion. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, White argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion because extraordinary circumstances justified relief because he did not receive Loibl's motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Jeremy White appealed a district court order denying his motions for relief from a judgment relating to primary residential responsibility and for contempt against Cassie Loibl. White and Loibl had one child together, born in 2015. In March 2016, the State sued White to decide issues of child support, health insurance and who could claim the child for income tax purposes. White was incarcerated when the State filed its complaint. The Barnes County Sheriff personally served White with the complaint at the Barnes County Correctional Facility. Loibl moved to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Loibl served White with the motion by mailing it to the Barnes County Correctional Facility and two other addresses in Valley City. White did not respond to either the State's complaint or Loibl's motion. The district court entered a judgment awarding Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility of the child. The court awarded White supervised parenting time and ordered him to pay $575 per month in child support. In February 2017, White moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and for contempt against Loibl. White claimed he did not respond to Loibl's motion because he did not receive the motion. He stated he was released from jail on March 4, 2016, and did not reside at the addresses to which Loibl mailed the motion. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, White argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion because extraordinary circumstances justified relief because he did not receive Loibl's motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Janiece Rebenitsch appealed a district court's judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of their child to Dustin Rebenitsch. Janiece and Dustin married in 2011 and had a child, H.J.R., in 2012. In 2014, the district court issued an order divorcing the parties and awarding equal residential responsibility. When the parties divorced, they both resided in the Bismarck area. In February 2017, Dustin moved to modify residential responsibility based on allegations of domestic violence in Janiece's home. After an investigation, social services found no evidence of abuse in Janiece's home. However, both Dustin and Janiece also sought modification because H.J.R. would be starting school, and equal residential responsibility was no longer feasible due to Janiece's move to Dickinson. At the time of the hearing, Janiece was living in Dickinson with her other daughter from a different relationship; her boyfriend, Jordan Kessel; and his two sons. Dustin lived in Bismarck with his wife, Jessica, and her two sons. At the June 2017 hearing on residential responsibility modification, several witnesses testified about Janiece and Dustin's character and ability to parent H.J.R. After the hearing, the district court found N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2 factors (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (k) favored neither party; factors (i) and (j) were inapplicable; and factor (d) favored Dustin. The district court determined the best interest factors weighed in favor of Dustin and awarded him primary residential responsibility, subject to Janiece's reasonable parenting time. On appeal, Janiece argued the district court's findings regarding factors (b) and (k) were clearly erroneous. Janiece also argued it was clear, based on the entire record, that the district court made a mistake in awarding Dustin primary residential responsibility. Finding the district court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility to Dustin, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rebenitsch v. Rebenitsch" on Justia Law

Janiece Rebenitsch appealed a district court's judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of their child to Dustin Rebenitsch. Janiece and Dustin married in 2011 and had a child, H.J.R., in 2012. In 2014, the district court issued an order divorcing the parties and awarding equal residential responsibility. When the parties divorced, they both resided in the Bismarck area. In February 2017, Dustin moved to modify residential responsibility based on allegations of domestic violence in Janiece's home. After an investigation, social services found no evidence of abuse in Janiece's home. However, both Dustin and Janiece also sought modification because H.J.R. would be starting school, and equal residential responsibility was no longer feasible due to Janiece's move to Dickinson. At the time of the hearing, Janiece was living in Dickinson with her other daughter from a different relationship; her boyfriend, Jordan Kessel; and his two sons. Dustin lived in Bismarck with his wife, Jessica, and her two sons. At the June 2017 hearing on residential responsibility modification, several witnesses testified about Janiece and Dustin's character and ability to parent H.J.R. After the hearing, the district court found N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2 factors (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (k) favored neither party; factors (i) and (j) were inapplicable; and factor (d) favored Dustin. The district court determined the best interest factors weighed in favor of Dustin and awarded him primary residential responsibility, subject to Janiece's reasonable parenting time. On appeal, Janiece argued the district court's findings regarding factors (b) and (k) were clearly erroneous. Janiece also argued it was clear, based on the entire record, that the district court made a mistake in awarding Dustin primary residential responsibility. Finding the district court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility to Dustin, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rebenitsch v. Rebenitsch" on Justia Law

Robert Riddle appealed a district court order denying his motion for new trial. On October 14, 2016, a trial was held to settle the distribution of debts and assets between then husband and wife, Mona and Robert Riddle. Mona and Robert had previously entered a settlement agreement which was rescinded after Mona discovered Robert had concealed disability income and lied about various marital assets. Due to a travel or scheduling conflict, Robert did not attend the trial. Robert did not make any pre-trial motions asking for a continuance or to be telephonically connected during the proceeding. Shortly before the trial began, counsel met in chambers and the district court permitted Robert to phone-in and make arrangements with the clerk to be connected. Robert was able to phone-in during part of the two-hour proceeding, but was disconnected at some point during the trial. Mona testified to various valuations of debts and assets in both her and Robert's possession. Robert did not testify. His counsel did not call any witnesses, offer any exhibits, and did not provide an 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. On February 22, 2017, the notice of entry of judgment was served on Robert. The district court's order analyzed the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and awarded Robert approximately 47% and Mona 52% of the marital estate. On March 16, 2017, Robert moved for a new trial arguing there was an irregularity in the proceeding and newly discovered evidence. The district court denied Robert's motion because he failed to present grounds for new trial provided in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(1) and (4). Finding no reversible error in the denial for a new trial, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Riddle v. Riddle" on Justia Law

Robert Riddle appealed a district court order denying his motion for new trial. On October 14, 2016, a trial was held to settle the distribution of debts and assets between then husband and wife, Mona and Robert Riddle. Mona and Robert had previously entered a settlement agreement which was rescinded after Mona discovered Robert had concealed disability income and lied about various marital assets. Due to a travel or scheduling conflict, Robert did not attend the trial. Robert did not make any pre-trial motions asking for a continuance or to be telephonically connected during the proceeding. Shortly before the trial began, counsel met in chambers and the district court permitted Robert to phone-in and make arrangements with the clerk to be connected. Robert was able to phone-in during part of the two-hour proceeding, but was disconnected at some point during the trial. Mona testified to various valuations of debts and assets in both her and Robert's possession. Robert did not testify. His counsel did not call any witnesses, offer any exhibits, and did not provide an 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. On February 22, 2017, the notice of entry of judgment was served on Robert. The district court's order analyzed the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and awarded Robert approximately 47% and Mona 52% of the marital estate. On March 16, 2017, Robert moved for a new trial arguing there was an irregularity in the proceeding and newly discovered evidence. The district court denied Robert's motion because he failed to present grounds for new trial provided in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(1) and (4). Finding no reversible error in the denial for a new trial, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Riddle v. Riddle" on Justia Law

Terry Smith appealed, and Cindie Innis-Smith cross-appealed, an amended judgment granting the parties a divorce, dividing the parties' marital property, and awarding Innis-Smith spousal support. Smith also appealed an order denying his motion to reopen the record to present additional evidence relating to the values of certain items of marital property. Smith argued the district court clearly erred by equally distributing the marital property, claiming the parties' short marriage did not justify an equal distribution. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court’s distribution of the marital property. However, because of an alleged substantial change in the values of water depot and mineral interests as part of the marital property, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in denying Smith's motion to reopen the record to allow the parties to present additional evidence on the values of those property interests. The Supreme Court reversed the court's order denying Smith's motion to reopen, and remanded this case for further proceedings relating to the values of the water depot and mineral interests. View "Innis-Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law