Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In a divorce and child support dispute in the State of North Dakota, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's judgment, which involved the calculation of the defendant's child support obligation, decisions on evidentiary matters and the awarding of attorney’s fees.Aron Williams and Jennifer Williams, who have two children together, divorced in February 2018. Jennifer Williams was awarded primary residential responsibility of the children, and Aron Williams was ordered to pay child support based on his classification as an experienced farmer with an imputed gross annual income. The case has gone through several rounds of modification and amendment of judgments.In the latest appeal, Aron Williams contested the district court's categorization of him as a "farmer" and its subsequent calculation of his income for child support purposes, arguing that he should be considered a "farm laborer" with a lower income. The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court did not err in classifying Aron Williams as a farmer and imputing the statewide average income of a farmer to him for the purposes of child support.Additionally, Aron Williams argued that the district court erred in its decisions regarding evidentiary matters and the awarding of attorney’s fees to Jennifer Williams. The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s motion to reopen the record or in awarding attorney’s fees, and therefore affirmed these decisions. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

In the State of North Dakota, Joshua Holm appealed from a district court's decision to issue a disorderly conduct restraining order preventing him from contacting Heidi Holm for six months. The couple's marriage had deteriorated and they agreed to separate; however, Heidi alleged that Joshua had taken money from her safe and joint checking accounts, attempted to force her into sex, and had weapons, causing her to fear him. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the decision, stating that the district court had abused its discretion by issuing the restraining order without finding that Joshua intended to adversely affect Heidi's safety, security, or privacy. The court noted that while Joshua had admittedly visited the marital home against Heidi’s wishes, this alone did not establish reasonable grounds for a restraining order. The court concluded that Heidi, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving Joshua acted with adverse intent, which she failed to do. The restraining order was, therefore, reversed. View "Holm v. Holm" on Justia Law

In the State of North Dakota, the Supreme Court was asked to review a lower court's decision to grant a disorderly conduct restraining order. The petitioner, Hattie Albertson, had filed for this restraining order against the respondent, Trent Albertson. The District Court of Bottineau County had granted the restraining order in favor of Hattie Albertson and their minor child, C.W.A., for a period of one year. This decision was appealed by Trent Albertson, and the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded the case to the lower court for more detailed findings. Upon review of these additional findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to maintain the restraining order.The lower court had found that Trent Albertson had made multiple threatening phone calls over two days, including threats of violence against a friend of the minor child and towards the child as well. These threats and the respondent's actions, including attempting to forcefully enter Hattie Albertson's home, led her to leave the home out of fear. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's decision, finding the evidence and testimony presented sufficient to believe that acts constituting disorderly conduct had been committed.Trent Albertson had argued on appeal that the restraining order effectively modified a residential responsibility schedule without necessary hearings and considerations. However, the Supreme Court declined to address this argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal, and had not been presented to the lower court for consideration. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the disorderly conduct restraining order and affirmed the decision. View "Albertson v. Albertson" on Justia Law

David Tracey appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from having contact with Monica Tracey for a two-year period. The petition alleged Monica was in fear of her husband. Monica's testimony described events that led to filing the petition, pertinent here, an argument with her husband that resulted in a physical altercation that occurred in November 2021. Following this incident, Monica left the parties’ house for about ten months. The parties reconciled after this incident, and Monica moved back home for about five months before leaving again. Without providing any specific dates, Monica further testified that in the past, David had told her “no one would care if [she] disappeared.” She took these comments about her disappearing as a threat. Monica stated she was not “comfortable” with David showing up to her home and place of work. David did not cross-examine Monica Tracey or deny the allegation of the physical altercation in November 2021, nor did he deny any other incidents related in Monica's testimony. David argued the district court erred in granting the domestic violence protection order because Monica failed to make a showing of actual or imminent domestic violence and the court failed to make sufficient findings to enable proper appellate review. To this, the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed: Monica's petition was based on fear of imminent harm, but the district court made oral findings based on David's conduct that occurred about one and a half years prior. The court made no other specific findings on how the altercation met the definition of domestic violence or whether David acted in self-defense. "Although the November 2021 incident is relevant to the issue of domestic violence, given the period of time since the conduct occurred, and the on and off again relationship between the parties, it is necessary for the district court to find a contemporaneous actual harm or the infliction of fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault." The Supreme Court reversed the two-year domestic violence protection order. View "Tracey v. Tracey" on Justia Law

Trenton Albertson appealed the issuance of a disorderly conduct restraining order that directed he have no contact with Hattie Albertson and C.W.A., the couple's child, for a one-year period. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Trenton's request for a continuance. Because the district court did not make findings of fact to explain the factual basis for granting the disorderly conduct restraining order, the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) and remanded with instructions for the court to make sufficient findings to enable the Court's review of the disorderly conduct restraining order. View "Albertson v. Albertson" on Justia Law

Payton Small appealed from a judgment awarding Tess Hillestad primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor child. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s decision awarding primary residential responsibility to Hillestad, setting a parenting time holiday schedule, and granting Hillestad tie-breaking authority was not clearly erroneous. View "Hillestad v. Small" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed a district court order denying Kayla Jones’ petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order. Rath lacked standing to appeal the favorable order because he prevailed in the district court. Rath also raised unappealable issues concerning an interlocutory order and motions that he as a vexatious litigant did not have court authorization to file. None of the issues Rath raised were properly before the North Dakota Supreme Court, so the appeal was dismissed. View "Jones v. Rath" on Justia Law

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