Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Barbara Degnan appealed a district court order denying her motion for amended findings of fact and new trial following her divorce. Barbara Degnan argued the district court erred when it divided the marital property, awarded inadequate spousal support, allowed testimony about comments made prior to marriage and refused to amend its findings or grant her a new trial. Lowell Degnan argued Barbara's appeal was frivolous and he should have been awarded attorneys fees. Finding no reversible error and that Lowell was not entitled to fees, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Degnan v. Degnan" on Justia Law

Ralph Werven appealed his judgment of divorce which divided the marital estate and awarded Laurita Werven spousal support. Ralph Werven also appealed post-judgment orders denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, denying his motion to stay the judgment, and holding him in contempt. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the divorce judgment, the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, and the order denying the motion to stay the judgment. The order holding Ralph Werven in contempt was affirmed as modified View "Werven v. Werven" on Justia Law

This case was a continuation of "contentious" divorce proceedings between parties who "accumulated significant assets during their marriage." Sandra Hendricksen Martire appealed from an amended divorce judgment modifying Michael Martire's child support obligation and leaving unaltered his spousal support obligation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in refusing to modify Martire's spousal support obligation. The Court further concluded, however, that the court failed to follow the Child Support Guidelines in setting Martire's child support obligation. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Martire' v. Martire'" on Justia Law

D.V.T., the father of minor child K.J.C., appealed a district court's final decree of adoption, terminating his parental rights and granting a petition for step-parent adoption. The father argued the district court clearly erred in terminating his parental rights and finding his consent to the adoption was not necessary. The father contended there was not clear and convincing evidence he intended to abandon the child. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court concluded evidence supports the court's findings, and, based on the entire record, it was not convinced a mistake had been made. The record reflected the mother and step-father's attorney prepared the proposed written termination order before the hearing terminating the father's rights. "We recognize the court wanted the termination and adoption finalized quickly and the use of a document prepared by one of the parties may save time, but the court has an obligation to ensure the findings are correct." The trial court's written order erred in stating no person appeared at the hearing claiming to be the natural father; however, D.V.T. did appear. The Supreme Court found the error did not require reversal. The Court modified the final decree of adoption to reflect the father was present at the hearing and objected to the petition to terminate his parental rights and grant a step-parent adoption. View "Matter of K.J.C." on Justia Law

Patricia Schurmann (now Heidt), appealed after the district court modified parenting time and child support. She argued the district court failed to properly weigh evidence of domestic violence in increasing Ralf Schurmann's parenting time. She also argued the court should not have reduced child support. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order regarding parenting time, but reversed and remanded the order regarding child support, finding that the district court relied on unreliable information to calculate child support in this case, and as such, failed to comply with statutory guidelines. The court's child support calculation was clearly erroneous. The judgment was reversed and the remanded for recalculation of child support. View "Schurmann v. Schurmann" on Justia Law

In January 2013, Mark Rath and Kayla Rath divorced. The divorce judgment awarded Kayla primary residential responsibility for the parties' two children, and Mark received supervised parenting time at the Family Safety Center. Mark appealed orders denying his various motions, including motions for orders to show cause, for an ex parte interim order to modify a judgment, and for recusal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in refusing to hold Kayla in contempt, did not err in denying Mark's request to modify the judgment, and did not err in conducting a hearing on his motions. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney fees to Kayla and in refusing to recuse himself from this case. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Heather Haag and Michael Haag were married in 2000 and have one minor child together. The parties divorced in 2009, and the district court adopted the parties' stipulation and ordered the parties have equal residential responsibility of the child. Heather moved to modify primary residential responsibility of the child, parenting time, and child support. She also moved for an ex parte interim order and filed a supporting affidavit and exhibits. She alleged Michael had a long history of using alcohol and drugs, he was arrested for cocaine possession in August 2014, and he was convicted of boating under the influence of alcohol in 2009. She also alleged Michael physically abused her during the marriage and the child witnessed the abuse. The district court granted Heather's motion for an ex parte interim order, and ordered Michael have supervised parenting time two times per week for two hours each visit. The court also found Heather established a prima facie case justifying modification and ordered an evidentiary hearing be held. After a hearing, the district court denied Heather motion to modify primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support, finding that most of the evidence Heather presented focused on Michael's pre-divorce drug and alcohol use and abusive behavior. The court, therefore, concluded Heather did not prove a material change in circumstances, and it did not consider the best interest factors to determine whether modification was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the court's decision was induced by an erroneous view of the law, and the court's finding that Heather did not prove a material change in circumstances was "clearly erroneous." View "Haag v. Haag" on Justia Law

Angela Dieterle (now Hansen) appealed an order finding her in contempt of court for failing to cooperate in the sale of marital property and failing to follow a parenting plan. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Hansen in contempt, and affirmed. View "Dieterle v. Dieterle" on Justia Law

Marsha Brouillet appealed a divorce judgment that granted primary residential responsibility for the parties' two younger children to Bradley Brouillet, awarded him child support, and divided the parties' marital estate. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's award of primary residential responsibility for the two children, finding of Marsha Brouillet's income in awarding child support, and distribution of marital assets and debts were all supported by the record. View "Brouillet v. Brouillet" on Justia Law

In 2012 Joshua Ritter and Tara McDonald (formerly Ritter) divorced via stipulation. The parties agreed Tara would have primary residential responsibility of their two minor children, Joshua's parenting time would be determined by mutual agreement and Tara would reasonably accommodate Joshua's requests for parenting time. The parties' parenting plan allowed Joshua two successive days of uninterrupted parenting time after giving Tara at least forty-eight hours' notice and modification by mutual agreement. The district court adopted the agreed upon parenting plan in its order granting divorce. In 2015, Joshua filed a motion to modify primary residential responsibility with supporting affidavit requesting the parties be awarded equal residential responsibility. Joshua's affidavit asserted a change in his employment after the divorce judgment constituted a material change warranting modification of primary residential responsibility. At the time of divorce, Joshua was a commercial airline pilot and was out-of-town up to four nights a week. Because of his unpredictable work schedule, Joshua agreed Tara would have primary residential responsibility. Joshua changed jobs and became a pilot for a Bismarck company and worked a more predictable, weekday schedule. Joshua appealed the district court's order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility of his two children. Joshua argues the district court erred in determining he failed to make a prima facie case that a material change in circumstances existed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court order finding Joshua failed to meet a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "Ritter v. Ritter" on Justia Law