Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Jason Sayler appealed an amended judgment entered after a bench trial on the issue of parental responsibility. He argued the district court’s award of primary residential responsibility to Mari Sayler in Minnesota was procedurally improper because: (1) she did not make a motion to relocate the children to Minnesota; (2) the court erred by failing to apply the Stout-Hawkinson factors; and (3) the court erred by considering circumstances created by the interim order. He further argued the court’s findings on the best interest factors and decision-making authority were clearly erroneous. Finally, he argued the court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees. Finding only that the district court did not make sufficient findings to support its award of attorney’s fees, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the court’s award of attorney’s fees and remanded for the court to make further findings on its award of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the parts of the amended judgment awarding primary responsibility and decision-making authority. View "Sayler v. Sayler" on Justia Law

S.L.S., biological mother of D.M.H., appeals from an order reappointing J.H.T. and L.H.T. as D.M.H’s guardians and adopting a prior visitation schedule as the current visitation schedule. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: S.L.S. did not cite any statute or case requiring that a visitation schedule be updated or changed at a specific time. "Nor has she cited us to any law prohibiting a juvenile court from adopting a prior visitation schedule. Absent such a law and absent any argument a different visitation schedule would be beneficial to D.M.H., the court did not err by adopting the prior visitation schedule." View "Interest of D.M.H." on Justia Law

Tyler Vetter appealed a fifth amended judgment entered after the district court denied his motion to hold Amy Salter in contempt and, on its own motion, invoked N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to modify a fourth amended judgment. The district court entered a judgment requiring Vetter to pay Salter child support. The judgment was amended various times (for reasons not relevant to this appeal). In a separate action, the court ordered primary residential responsibility changed from Salter to Vetter. The court subsequently entered a fourth amended judgment requiring Salter to reimburse Vetter child support amounts he paid. Two days after the court entered its order to amend the judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hamburger v. Hamburger, 978 N.W.2d 709, which explained a vested child support obligation could not be retroactively modified. Neither party appealed the fourth amended judgment. Vetter moved for an order to hold Salter in contempt for not paying him the $2,930. In consideration of Hamburger, the court, citing N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), ordered the fourth amended judgment “be modified to reinstate the child support obligation of Tyler Vetter” for the earlier period and to “strik[e] the obligation of Amy Salter to make reimbursement.” A fifth amended judgment was entered accordingly. The Supreme Court reversed in part: even if the trial court was correct that its original decision was based upon a mistaken view of the law, Rule 60(a) did not authorize the court’s modification. Therefore, the Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it invoked Rule 60(a) to relieve Salter of her obligations under the fourth amended judgment. View "North Dakota, et al. v. Vetter" on Justia Law

Savanna Perales appealed a district court order requiring her to return her children to North Dakota. Perales and Erik Gonzalez were divorced by a Texas divorce decree. After the divorce, both parties lived in North Dakota. Perales then relocated with the children to Georgia. The district court, in an ex parte emergency order, ordered Perales to return the children to North Dakota. Later, the court held a hearing and issued the order from which Perales appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded this order was not appealable and dismissed the appeal. View "Gonzalez v. Perales" on Justia Law

Jerome Lowe, Jr. appealed a domestic violence protection order restraining him from contact with Lori Legacie-Lowe for 12 months. The North Dakota Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded with instructions for the district court to make sufficient findings to enable the Supreme Court to review the order. Upon reviewing the district court’s findings on remand, the Court affirmed the domestic violence protection order. View "Legacie-Lowe v. Lowe" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Edison appealed a divorce judgment and an amended judgment awarding primary residential responsibility for two children to Signe Edison, arguing error in the form of gender bias and in the court’s finding that Jeffrey Edison was underemployed for purposes of child support. Signe argued Jeffrey waived his gender bias argument and, in the alternative, that the trial court’s judgment was not based on gender bias. Jeffrey also requested the North Dakota Supreme Court award the parties equal residential responsibility and impose a “50/50 parenting plan” or reassign the case on remand to a different trial judge. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to reconsider: (1) the decision to award Signe with primary residential responsibility; and (2) the best interests of the children under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and to recalculate any child support obligations. View "Edison v. Edison" on Justia Law

Nicholas Otten appealed a district court judgment entered after a bench trial on divorce proceedings. On appeal, he argued the court erred by denying his motion to continue trial. He also argued the court erroneously admitted, reviewed, and relied on Jessica Otten’s evidence, and thereby erred in its division of marital property, consideration of the best interest factors, and award of his parenting time. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment. View "Otten v. Otten, et. al." on Justia Law

Derrick Dogbe appealed district court’s order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility, an order denying his motion to vacate the modification order, and an order awarding attorney’s fees to Rebekah Dogbe (now known as Rebekah Grafsgaard). After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed that part of the order denying Dogbe’s motion to modify primary residential responsibility, but reversed those parts of the orders awarding attorney’s fees. View "Dogbe v. Dogbe, et al." on Justia Law

Ryan Fleck appealed the denial of his motion to amend a parenting plan. He argued the district court erred in allowing Dana Fleck to testify, and he made various challenges to the court’s findings. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court held the court did not err in allowing Dana to testify. Furthermore, the Court held the trial court applied an erroneous standard for determining whether a material change in circumstances had occurred for purposes of modifying parenting time. Thus, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fleck v. Fleck, et al." on Justia Law

Cassandra Smith, formerly Goetz, appealed a judgment awarding her and Joshua Goetz equal residential responsibility of their minor children and awarding Goetz primary decision making responsibility. In Goetz v. Goetz, 988 N.W.2d 553, the North Dakota Supreme Court remanded the case concluding the district court did not make specific findings regarding whether the material change in circumstances resulted in a general decline or adversely affected the children. Upon reviewing the district court’s findings on remand, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment because the court once again failed to make specific findings regarding whether the material change in circumstances resulted in a general decline or adversely affected the children. View "Goetz v. Goetz, et al." on Justia Law