Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Gabriel Asumeng appealed a judgment dividing the marital estate and awarding Vivian Asiama primary residential responsibility of the parties’ children. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err by awarding Asiama primary residential responsibility; however, the court erred in its distribution of the marital estate. View "Asiama v. Asumeng, et al." on Justia Law

Wayne Anderson appealed, and Renee Anderson cross-appealed the parties' divorce judgment. The parties raised issues concerning the district court’s marital estate valuation and distribution. Wayne also argued the court erred when it ordered him to pay attorney fees as a sanction for discovery violations and contempt. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the contempt decision because Wayne did not timely appeal that order. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the award of attorney fees. The Court reversed the district court’s property valuation, concluding the court erred as a matter of law when it valued a capital loss carryover for tax purposes and when it excluded a portion of the parties’ assets from the marital estate. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider its property distribution. View "Anderson v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Michael Knudsen appealed a district court order determining Knudsen did not establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility, and from a district court order denying his motion to disqualify Tessa Falcon’s counsel. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Falcon v. Knudsen, et al." on Justia Law

T.L.B. appealed a district court judgment changing the surname of her child from T.L.B.’s surname to a hyphenated surname under N.D.C.C. § 14- 20-57(7). The child’s hyphenated name combined her father’s and mother’s surnames. On appeal, T.L.B. argued the district court: (1) erroneously found she changed her surname after her marriage; (2) erred because it hyphenated H.R.B’s name on the erroneous basis that she shared a name with no one else in her household; (3) erred because it did not consider the factors for changing a name under N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (4) erred because it did not consider T.L.B.’s emotional injury as an injury for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (5) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because it had insufficient best interests of the child evidence; and (6) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because the suggestion to hyphenate the child’s surname was raised for the first time at the evidentiary proceeding. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "E.R.J. v. T.L.B." on Justia Law

Jerome Lowe, Jr. appealed the grant of a domestic violence protection order, arguing the district court erred in granting the order and failed to make sufficient findings to enable the North Dakota Supreme Court to properly review the order. The Supreme Court concurred the findings were insufficient, so it remanded with instructions for the district court to make sufficient findings to enable review of the order. View "Legacie-Lowe v. Lowe" on Justia Law

Victoria Fietzek and Henry Fietzek cross-appealed a divorce judgment. Victoria argued the district court erred in: (1) its Ruff-Fischer analysis; (2) the distribution of the marital estate; (3) the valuation of the assets; (4) finding Henry did not commit economic waste; (5) limiting the duration of spousal support; and (6) in not awarding attorney’s fees to her. Henry argued only that the district court erred in the duration and amount of spousal support awarded to Victoria. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s Ruff-Fischer analysis, the court’s findings of fact in regard to the equitable distribution of the martial estate, the court’s finding that Henry did not commit economic waste, and the court’s denial of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court reversed the order for spousal support and remanded for the district court to make additional findings regarding spousal support and, if necessary, reconsider the allocation of property. View "Fietzek v. Fietzek" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appeals from a disorderly conduct restraining order directing him to have no contact with Kayla Jones for one year. In 2013, Rath and Jones divorced. Together they had two children. In July 2022, Jones filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order after Rath sent numerous e-mails to Jones, her attorney, and her employer during a short period of time. A temporary restraining order was issued. In August 2022, a hearing was held and the district court granted a disorderly conduct restraining order against Rath. Rath argued the court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing within fourteen days of issuing the temporary restraining order. He argued the court abused its discretion by granting a restraining order even though Jones’s petition did not comply with N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01(3). He also argued the court abused its discretion by issuing the disorderly conduct restraining order without sufficient findings. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jones v. Rath" on Justia Law

Cassandra Goetz appealed a corrected amended judgment awarding her and Joshua Goetz equal residential responsibility of their minor children and awarding Joshua primary decision making responsibility. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined further findings were warranted. The Court remanded the case with instructions that the district court 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

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to modify child support. He argued the district court erred when it applied the North Dakota Supreme Court’s vexatious litigant pre-filing order, when it allowed the State to file a response to his motion after the deadline, and when it denied his motion without a hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Rath v. Rath, et al." on Justia Law

Michael Brockmeyer appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify his joint residential responsibility to primary residential responsibility. He argued the district court erred: (1) as a matter of law by finding best interest factors a, b, d, f, g, and k favored neither party; (2) by applying the endangerment standard of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6 after the parties waived that provision in their stipulated divorce agreement; (3) by declining to modify residential responsibility because of facts unknown to the court at the time the court entered the original divorce judgment based on their stipulated agreement; and (4) by allowing various witnesses to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at trial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brockmeyer v. Brockmeyer, et al." on Justia Law